BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

12,38,740. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) and the impugned addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Prayer:- In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the 3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

12,38,740. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) and the impugned addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Prayer:- In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the 3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

12,38,740. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) and the impugned addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Prayer:- In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the 3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that

SRI.SYED ALEEMULLAH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Syed Aleemullah, Prop. S.A.Developers, No.950, 27Th A Main, Jayanagar, 9Th Block, Bengaluru-560069. … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle- 4(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.Dinesh, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2017

disallowances, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who, vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal by observing as under: Page 7 of 19 Page 8 of 19 7. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the housing project was duly approved by the Bangalore Page

DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed as the appellant assessee failed to file Form 9A within the due date. (ii) Section 11(1) explicitly mandates the filing of Form 9A for the accumulation of income for the charitable purpose to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilization of fund for charitable activities. ITA Nos.2115 & 2116/Bang/2024 Doddaballapur Planning Authority, Doddaballapur Page

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

12 of the Act. 15.1 The facts, in brief, are that the appellant assessee, during the year under consideration, claimed an exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act against income earned or accrued by it. Consequently, the assessee declared taxable income as NIL in the return of income filed by it. 15.2 During the assessment proceedings, the AO found

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

12 of the Act. 15.1 The facts, in brief, are that the appellant assessee, during the year under consideration, claimed an exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act against income earned or accrued by it. Consequently, the assessee declared taxable income as NIL in the return of income filed by it. 15.2 During the assessment proceedings, the AO found

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

12. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the facts are identical to the Assessment Year 2008-09 as there is no fresh investment during the said assessment year and therefore in view of our finding for the assessment year 2008- 09 the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A on account of indirect expenditure is deleted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

12, Bangalore 2. has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 8,02,96,882 and making a disallowance -of Rs. 7,65,80,751. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

12, Bangalore 2. has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 8,02,96,882 and making a disallowance -of Rs. 7,65,80,751. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

10. The learned assessing officer has erred in computing disallowance of Rs. 3,30,96,246 under section Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax rules, 1962 (“Rules”) and erred in making net addition

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

12 of the Act. 15.1 The facts, in brief, are that the appellant assessee, during the year under consideration, claimed an exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act against income earned or accrued by it. Consequently, the assessee declared taxable income as NIL in the return of income filed by it. 15.2 During the assessment proceedings, the AO found

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

10(34) of the I.T.Act. The AO in the impugned assessment order has made disallowance of Rs.1,31,50,663 under section 14A of the I.T.Act by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”). The AO rejected the contention of the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure in relation to income

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

disallowed 1/5TH of the total expenditure incurred towards initial public offer at the time of conversion of Brigade Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., to Brigade Enterprises Ltd., treating it to be not eligible under section 35D Page 11 of 25 of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs CIT reported

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

10. Ground No.4.1 & 4.2 - Disallowance U/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.1 These grounds are raised in respect of the disallowance of software expenses paid to overseas entities amounting to Rs.11,94,50,304 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source thereon under Section 195 of the Act. 10.2.1 We have

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not only confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.91,59,391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule but also enhancing the same to Rs 1,15,70,677/-. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not only confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.91,59,391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule but also enhancing the same to Rs 1,15,70,677/-. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not only confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.91,59,391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule but also enhancing the same to Rs 1,15,70,677/-. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring