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

25,27,272/-). On appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dated 14.11.2012, inter alia, deleted the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.15,27,310/- and upheld the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 22 amounting to Rs.1,09,99,962/-. Revenue filed an appeal before

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

25,27,272/-). On appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dated 14.11.2012, inter alia, deleted the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.15,27,310/- and upheld the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 22 amounting to Rs.1,09,99,962/-. Revenue filed an appeal before

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

25,27,272/-). On appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dated 14.11.2012, inter alia, deleted the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.15,27,310/- and upheld the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 22 amounting to Rs.1,09,99,962/-. Revenue filed an appeal before

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.

25 the act and the disallowance made under section 80IB(10) of the act, by the Ld.AO. 2.11 Aggrieved by the additions

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

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 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

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. Grounds related to additions to Book profit of amounts disallowed u/s 14A 10.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 8 M/s.United Breweries Limited. the AO in adding back to the book profit, the disallowance made u/s 14A, as was done in normal computation of income, ignoring the decisions relied upon by the assessee

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

25 9.1 Ground No.1 of the assessee's C.O. deals with the disallowance confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) under section 14A r.w. rule 8D (2)(iii) amounting to Rs.1,09,99,962. We have already considered the facts and material on record while adjudicating the revenue’s grounds No.7 to 13 in respect of the disallowance under Rule

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

10. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing

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. 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

25 of 31 A close examination of Clause (a) of the unnumbered 3rd proviso 36. shows that the onus cast upon the appellant is to apply its income, or accumulate it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established. In the case of the appellant, as mentioned above, the impugned payments to the extent

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

10, 2018, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) and section 92CD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 4(1)(2), Bangalore ('ACIT'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 2. Reliance on the Draft Assessment Order

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

25. The position in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 is also identical as per the following details :- ITA Nos.2707 to 2709/Bang/2017 CO Nos.40 to 42/Band/2018 Page 29 of 41 26. It is also pertinent to mention that CBDT Circular No.14/Bang/2015 dated 17/8/2015 has given guidelines regarding generation of surplus out of gross receipts. This Circular was issued

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

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