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

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 8D(2)(iii) for all three Assessment Years 4.1 In respect of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.63,60,000/- for Assessment Year

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

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 8D(2)(iii) for all three Assessment Years 4.1 In respect of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.63,60,000/- for Assessment Year

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

ii) of section 10AA(4) was inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from February 10, 2006. The business of the SEZ unit 1 in Chennai was formed and commenced on 16.7.2005 i.e., before 10.2.2006. 6.11 The SEZ unit No. 1 at Chennai was formed and started claiming deduction under section 10AA in the FY 2005-06. Thus

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the appellant's case.\n9. Without prejudice to the right

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the appellant's case.\n9. Without prejudice to the right

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

ii) Insurance claim received in respect of flood in Chennai during the FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs. 3,07,45,374 iii) Interest on loans to subsidiaries amounting to Rs.13,35,23,830 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 3 of 34 iv) Interest on Govt Securities amounting to Rs.4,34,11,632 v) Interest on debentures amounting to Rs.141

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)

II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/:\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages is not justified in\nthe absence of any real income, without any incriminating\nevidence, not based on audited financial statements and\ntax audit report but being

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

II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/:\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages is not justified in\nthe absence of any real income, without any incriminating\nevidence, not based on audited financial statements and\ntax audit report but being

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.

4. The Learned AO was not justified in invoking\nSection 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) without first recording the\nexact expenditure incurred to earn exempt income to justify\nthe impugned disallowance.\nPage 3 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n4. 5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii

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

ii) Nevertheless, the assessee paid the tax on Rs.1,000/- in Saudi Arabia @ 10% i.e. Rs.100/-. The credit which would be given to the assessee under Section 91 of the Act is to extent of Rs.85/- i.e. doubly taxed income amounting to Rs.850/-. However, as no credit is given for the tax of Rs.15/- paid in Saudi Arabia on income

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

II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/ :-\n\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages is not justified in\nthe absence of any real income, without any incriminating\nevidence, not based on audited financial statements and\ntax audit report

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

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

4. OnMobile Technical 10% De support (page Venezuela services. 2075 C A PB) 5. OnMobile Technical 10% Global S support (page A, services. 2075 Same as Sl. No. 3 above Argentina PB) 6. OnMobile Technical 10% Costa Rica support (page OBCR SA services. 2075 PB) IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 40 7. OnMobile Sales and 7% Global

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

4. OnMobile Technical 10% De support (page Venezuela services. 2075 C A PB) 5. OnMobile Technical 10% Global S support (page A, services. 2075 Same as Sl. No. 3 above Argentina PB) 6. OnMobile Technical 10% Costa Rica support (page OBCR SA services. 2075 PB) IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 40 7. OnMobile Sales and 7% Global

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

disallowed the ‘cess' paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of section 10(4) of the Old Act and Section 40(a)(ii

M/S TATA HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on account of expenditure incurred on in-house R&D facility of the assessee. Consequently, grounds 1 to 5 of assessee's appeal are allowed. 15 5. Ground Nos.6 to 9 – Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 5.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals

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

4. Ground No.2 raised by assessee, challenges reliance of Ld.AO/DRP on draft assessment order for assessment year 2009- 10, which is set aside by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case, by order dated 18/07/2016. Ld.Counsel submitted that, authorities below failed to appreciate settled legal principles of res judicata, not applying to income tax proceedings

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

4 units in 1092 of the block. But on inspection, it is found that units in 9th and 10th blocks are clubbed and made into duplex apartment. DVO specifically mentioned that measurements taken are excluding common areas, lobby, corridors, staircase, club house etc. Based on this report of DVO, AO called upon the assessee to show cause why benefit

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

10,4\n627,11,02,6\n1881,33,07,8\n-18\n34\n34\n09\n25\n21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed\ndepreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/-\nonly.\n22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the\nvaluation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill\nappeared