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

20,000. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) & (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 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

20,000. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) & (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 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

20,000. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, computation of disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) & (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 time of hearing, the appellant prays that

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 above, the protective disallowance, if any, is to be limited to the amount of subscription charges payable to M/s Forester Research and M/s Gartner as on 31st March 2012 and no disallowance is to be made in respect of subscription charges actually paid during the relevant previous year. Grounds on disallowance under section

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.

disallowance under section 80IB(10) at Rs.8,07,80,427/-. 2.3 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee has claimed 1/5th of expenses incurred towards increase in authorised share capital amounting to Rs.13,20

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

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

10. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 17. Ground Nos.1 to 5 is regarding the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A r.w. 8D(2) on account of interest expenditure. The Assessing Officer noted that

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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 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

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

Section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim for exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act and determined

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim for exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act and determined

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

Section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim for exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act and determined

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

20,11,358. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowance of interest expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating that (a) the Form 26A was furnished before the learned AO indicating that Tata Capital Financial Services Limited had paid the taxes due on the impugned interest amount and thus the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

20,11,358. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowance of interest expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating that (a) the Form 26A was furnished before the learned AO indicating that Tata Capital Financial Services Limited had paid the taxes due on the impugned interest amount and thus the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee

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

20,690/- paid by the appellant was towards dental camp expenses and that the appellant is running a dental college. Hence, the payment was incurred for the purposes of education and a statement of expenses in this regard had also been furnished during the course of proceedings and these payments are not seriously doubted. [b] That, with regard

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

section 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. With regard to the next issue of disallowances of financial charges, it is noticed that the assessee has given the interest free advances of Rs.48,80,000/- to its subsidiary M/s. Azure Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Since no interest

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

section 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. With regard to the next issue of disallowances of financial charges, it is noticed that the assessee has given the interest free advances of Rs.48,80,000/- to its subsidiary M/s. Azure Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Since no interest