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

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. 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

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% of salary cost of CFC as voluntarily disallowed by the appellant under section 14A. 5.2 The ld CIT(A) in his order stated that the argument of the assessee that the investment in shares of the subsidiary company Infosys BPO Limited are not to be considered for computing the disallowance u/s 14A, the same being for strategic investment

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% of salary cost of CFC as voluntarily disallowed by the appellant under section 14A. 5.2 The ld CIT(A) in his order stated that the argument of the assessee that the investment in shares of the subsidiary company Infosys BPO Limited are not to be considered for computing the disallowance u/s 14A, the same being for strategic investment

M/S WIPRO LIMITED ,BNAGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

Appeals is partly allowed for statistical purposes as in earlier orders of this Tribunal

25 of the Indo-US Double Taxation Agreement deals with relief from double taxation. Clause 2(a) is the relevant provision. It reads as under (see [1991]187 ITR (St.) 102, 124) : \"2(a) Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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.\n\n15. As regards disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n\n15. 1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

10. These writ petitions are dismissed and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed." 14. The facts are identical before me. Thus, all the decision relied up on by the ld AR which are of SMC benches or division benches cannot be followed by me as the decision of Honourable Madras high court covers the issue and binds me. No other

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

10. These writ petitions are dismissed and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed." 14. The facts are identical before me. Thus, all the decision relied up on by the ld AR which are of SMC benches or division benches cannot be followed by me as the decision of Honourable Madras high court covers the issue and binds me. No other

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

10. These writ petitions are dismissed and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed." 14. The facts are identical before me. Thus, all the decision relied up on by the ld AR which are of SMC benches or division benches cannot be followed by me as the decision of Honourable Madras high court covers the issue and binds me. No other

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

25% (Rs.)\nClosing WDV\n(Rs.)\nduring\nthe (Rs.)\nyear (Rs.)\n2015\n-16\n412,05,36,13\n2\n412,05,36,13\n2\n103,01,34,0\n33\n309,04,02,09\n9\n2016\n309,04,02,09\n3035,54,78,4\n3344,58,80,5\n836,14,70,1\n2508,44,10

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed as expenses under section 36 (1) (ii) of the act. We also find that the learned CIT – A has not corrected the above aberration but deleted the whole of the addition without looking into the provisions of this section. 24. In view of the above facts we restore this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

25% (Rs.)\nClosing WDV\n(Rs.)\n2015\n412,05,36,13 412,05,36,13 103,01,34,0 309,04,02,09\n-16\n2\n2\n33\n9\n2016\n309,04,02,09 3035,54,78,4 3344,58,80,5 836,14,70,1 2508,44,10,4\n-17\n9\n80\n79\n45\n34\n2017\n2508

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

disallowance. 25. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2008-09. 26. We have considered the rival submissions

ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

disallowance. 25. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2008-09. 26. We have considered the rival submissions