SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

10) Whether nothing incriminating material is found and no seizure is made ?\n\n77. The panchnama referred to in Explanation 2 to the said section\nspecifically refers to search under section 132 and section 132\nspecifically refers to authorisation to enter and search and it has no\nreference to entering and searching the premises which are the\nsubject-matter

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

10) Whether nothing incriminating material is found and no seizure is made ?\n77. The panchnama referred to in Explanation 2 to the said section\nspecifically refers to search under section 132 and section 132\nspecifically refers to authorisation to enter and search and it has no\nreference to entering and searching the premises which are the\nsubject-matter of prohibitory

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 10AA of the Act in respect of these incomes. Accordingly, the ground No 3 of the assessee is allowed. 11. The ground No. 4 of the assessee deals with the disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs. 218,16,32,251/- (including Rs. 52,10

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

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) warrantingany disallowance or not. Though the said information and documents were available during the course of the assessment proceedings, in the light of the fact that no figure was put forth to the appellant company for its rebuttal with regard to the proposed disallowance, and the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer had arrived at the disallowance

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) warrantingany disallowance or not. Though the said information and documents were available during the course of the assessment proceedings, in the light of the fact that no figure was put forth to the appellant company for its rebuttal with regard to the proposed disallowance, and the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer had arrived at the disallowance

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) warrantingany disallowance or not. Though the said information and documents were available during the course of the assessment proceedings, in the light of the fact that no figure was put forth to the appellant company for its rebuttal with regard to the proposed disallowance, and the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer had arrived at the disallowance

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

3) of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of section in disallowing the claim to the extent of 20%. 10

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

3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the aforesaid grounds be allowed. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule

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

3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the aforesaid grounds be allowed. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule

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

3. time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the aforesaid grounds be allowed. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule

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

section 14A 10. The learned assessing officer has erred in computing disallowance of Rs. 3,30,96,246 under section

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. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in disallowing Rs.78,49,684/- under Section 14A\nwhen the exempted income of the Appellant during the\nimpugned AY 2017-18 itself was Rs.58,07,422/-.\n4. 11. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant

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

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

3. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in restricting the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to Rs.4,00,793 instead of deleting the entire disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 14A read with rule

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

3) vide order dated 27/03/2014 at total income of Rs.10,36,88,014/-. The disparity between returned income and the assessed income is on account of disallowing the claim of deduction of a sum of Page 4 of 19 Rs.10,29,94,124/- under sub-section (10

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

3. Grounds relating to Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia): 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) amounting to INR 7,34,77,951 by observing that TDS was not made on the year end provisions; 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

10 to 22, inter alia, on addition / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06. Since we have already held that the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act to be infirm and the proceedings and subsequent impugned order of assessment passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3

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. confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in disallowing deduction claimed under section 80JJAA amounting to Rs. 445,35,11,127. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance should be deleted in entirety and deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. Disallowance of payments made