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

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

c) The principle of apportionment of expenses is widened by section 14A to include even the apportionment of expenditure between taxable and nontaxable income of an indivisible business; (d) The basic principle of taxation is to tax net income. This principle applies even for the purpose of section 14A and expenses towards non-taxable income must be excluded; (e) Once

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

section 44AD which applies to a specified class of assesses . Page 15 of 23 cannot be taken as a bench mark and two, scaling it down even further does not have any basis either technical or arithmetic. The AO had not made out a case to justify his arm's length price, least of it, he had not brought

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

section 44AD which applies to a specified class of assesses . Page 15 of 23 cannot be taken as a bench mark and two, scaling it down even further does not have any basis either technical or arithmetic. The AO had not made out a case to justify his arm's length price, least of it, he had not brought

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

C Bench for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 not deducting tax at source under on the issue of liability on Infosys Ltd to section 195 deduct tax at source on such payments under section 195. Increase in SEZ profits on account of the above disallowance is eligible for deduction u/s 10AA Deduction under section 10AA

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

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 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 (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

C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case [CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers’ Assn.(1980) 2 SCC 31], Aditanar case [Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 346] and American Hotel & Lodging case [American Hotel & Lodging Assn. Educational Institute v. CBDT [(2008) 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

10. The appellant has admitted earned exempted income to the tune of Rs 14,00,809 and the expenses disallowed is Rs 11,30,403. This represents 81% of the income has been deemed to be cost incurred to earn the said income. 11. To assume that the cost of earning the income is 81% even under the circumstance that

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 appellant has admitted earned exempted income to the tune of Rs 14,00,809 and the expenses disallowed is Rs 11,30,403. This represents 81% of the income has been deemed to be cost incurred to earn the said income. 11. To assume that the cost of earning the income is 81% even under the circumstance 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

10. The appellant has admitted earned exempted income to the tune of Rs 14,00,809 and the expenses disallowed is Rs 11,30,403. This represents 81% of the income has been deemed to be cost incurred to earn the said income. 11. To assume that the cost of earning the income is 81% even under the circumstance that

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

23 are, with due respect, per incuriam, as it is against the settled principle of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in many decisions. “Nothing, therefore, turns on these definitions. What is to be essentially examined is what was the requirement of the context. The contextual requirement of Section 115JB, for taxation of book

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

23 are, with due respect, per incuriam, as it is against the settled principle of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in many decisions. “Nothing, therefore, turns on these definitions. What is to be essentially examined is what was the requirement of the context. The contextual requirement of Section 115JB, for taxation of book

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)

23 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n15. 3. The Learned AO erred in making aforesaid\ndisallowance of Rs.17,92,25,000/- without rejecting the\nbooks of accounts maintained by the Appellant.\n15. 4. The Learned AO erred in making the above\ndisallowance for alleged reasons of “improper\ndocumentation or non-production during the search” or\n“improperly vouched

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

C ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. (T.P) A. No.102/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/s. Infosys Limited, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. …. Appellant. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 11, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P) A. No.233/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowed by the AO. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessee did not sell the unlisted shares of VCU to claim exemption 10(23FB) of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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. 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

disallowances of expenses and deductions resulted in addition to the income, have been adjudicated in subsequent paragraphs after hearing the assessee and allowing the sufficient opportunity and therefore, in our view, the assessee should not have any grievance on this account, the objections are accordingly rejected.” IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 4.3 Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue, placed reliance