ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance warranted. According to the AO, the profit margins of the company, whose gross receipts is predominantly from the related enterprises only, before payment of salaries to specified persons u's. 13(3) and after payment of the same are in the order of 1763% and 1257% respectively, and this as per AO is not at arm's length

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA of the Act for interest income earned by the Appellant. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case by - passing the impugned Order without following the judicial Precedence on this matter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed in the return of income under section 14A. The said expenditure was computed on the basis of 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10%, respectively of the salary cost of CFO & Deputy CFO, SVP-Global Head – Taxation and corporate accounting, Treasury Head and other employees. 16.2 In the assessment order, a sum of Rs. 19,09,13

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

10 of 22 Crores for making investment in mutual funds and therefore the interest expenditure on borrowings amounting to Rs.3.57 Crores cannot be considered for making disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) in the year under consideration. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Microlabs

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

10 of 22 Crores for making investment in mutual funds and therefore the interest expenditure on borrowings amounting to Rs.3.57 Crores cannot be considered for making disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) in the year under consideration. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Microlabs

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

10 of 22 Crores for making investment in mutual funds and therefore the interest expenditure on borrowings amounting to Rs.3.57 Crores cannot be considered for making disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) in the year under consideration. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Microlabs

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

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

Disallowance under section 14A read 10 to 13 satisfaction by the AO with rule 8D(2)(iii) Without prejudice, ACIT

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.

13,20,000/- be allowed. iv) Deduction under section 80-lB amounting to Rs. 1,00,17,863/- be allowed. v) Disallowance of deduction under section 80-lB amounting to Rs. 8,07.80,427 be deleted.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for year under consideration

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

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

13. The assessee has also raised another ground for the Assessment Year 2010-11 being Ground No.6 as under : “ 6. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in conforming the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.21,03,510 being interest calculated at the rate of 10

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

10. confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in disallowing deduction claimed under section 80JJAA amounting to Rs. 445,35,11,127. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance should be deleted in entirety and deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. Disallowance of payments made

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

10. confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in disallowing deduction claimed under section 80JJAA amounting to Rs. 445,35,11,127. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance should be deleted in entirety and deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. Disallowance of payments made

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

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 10 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the amendments would take effect from 01/04/2024 and therefore the same would be applicable from the A.Y. 2024-25. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore confirmed the orders of the AO insofar as the disallowance made u/s. 13

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 10 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the amendments would take effect from 01/04/2024 and therefore the same would be applicable from the A.Y. 2024-25. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore confirmed the orders of the AO insofar as the disallowance made u/s. 13

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

13 of 31 • The trust was given recognition u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji vide order No. F. No. CCIT/PNJ/136(10)/2010-11 dated 15/04/2010. • As per the judicial propriety only the authority granting the exemption has the authority to withdraw the recognition granted. • In the instant case the recognition u/s 10

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

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S THE AUGUSTINIAN SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. ASST.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

disallowed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 5. Before the CIT(Appeals), the ld. AR contended that the AO ought to have appreciated that an assessable “entity” or a person like a Trust or a Page 3 of 11 Society is quite distinct and separate from the educational “institution” or a “school” run or operated