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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

10%, respectively of the\nsalary cost of CFO & Deputy CFO, SVP-Global Head - Taxation and\ncorporate accounting, Treasury Head and other employees.\n\n16.2 In the assessment order, a sum of Rs.19,09,13,241/- has been\ncomputed as the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. After\nreducing the voluntarily disallowance amounting to Rs.36

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

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

10% and the same was offered for taxation. Thus by considering the fact that the assessee was having its own interest free fund which is sufficient for advancing the interest free loans to the related parties/sister concerns, no disallowance was called for. 23. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the Assessing Officer has worked out the disallowance

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 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. 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

23][vi]”. The learned CCIT, Panaji alleged that the appellant had not applied its income wholly and exclusively for the objects for which it was established in accordance with the third proviso and this violation would bring Sub Clause B of Clause (ii) of unnumbered 15th proviso to Section 10(23C) of the Act into play

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

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.

23,868/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance. Page 2 of 25 2.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmise that there were some expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. 2.3. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens Educational Society 372 ITR 699 (SC) summed up the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) as follows: • Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that

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 37 of the act and the Assessing Officer by quantifying the disallowance applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules on the whole of the financial charges has made double disallowance of the same expense. ITA Nos.60/Bang/2012, 253/Bang/2014, 282/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 23 10

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

section 37 of the act and the Assessing Officer by quantifying the disallowance applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules on the whole of the financial charges has made double disallowance of the same expense. ITA Nos.60/Bang/2012, 253/Bang/2014, 282/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 23 10

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 37 of the act and the Assessing Officer by quantifying the disallowance applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules on the whole of the financial charges has made double disallowance of the same expense. ITA Nos.60/Bang/2012, 253/Bang/2014, 282/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 23 10

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

10 (Ten) months rent towards an interest free security deposit in respect of leased premise (Refer clause 7.1 of the lease deed at page 90 of the paper book). Therefore, the lease commenced as on date of executing the lease deed and hence, the `property was let’ as per the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, within

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. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

10,59,082/- under Section 14A in the revised and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the very same returns.\n15.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage value of those investments, income from which are\nexempt shall alone be taken into consideration

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

10. Without prejudice, the Learned AO could have\nmade addition of income only to the extent of alleged\ninflation of Rs.1,97,021/- made by Mr. Ashok Shenoy,\nmanager of M/s. Shenoy & Co.\n15. As regards disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n15. 1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

10,344/- be not reduced from export turnover while computing deduction under section 10A. deferred revenue of Rs. 11,69,38,859/- be not (ii) assessed to tax for the year under consideration. disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D (iii) amounting to Rs. 23

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