SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 of the Act. the details of such expenses stand as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Interest On TDS 803723.00 2 Penalty -ESI and Professional Tax 1669730.00 3 Gifts 100750.00 4 DKA Statue Expenses 181075.00 5 Input Tax Credit Write off 12444081,00 Total 3999359.00 9.2 Accordingly, the Ld. AO disallowed

KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

11,011/-. In\norder under section 263 of the Act, it was also directed to levy interest\nunder section 234A for late filing of return.\n3.2\nDuring the assessment proceeding in pursuance to order under\nsection 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted that its final accounts\nwere prepared in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka\nCooperative Society

DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed as the appellant assessee failed to file Form 9A within the due date. (ii) Section 11(1) explicitly mandates the filing of Form 9A for the accumulation of income for the charitable purpose to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilization of fund for charitable activities. ITA Nos.2115 & 2116/Bang/2024 Doddaballapur Planning Authority, Doddaballapur Page 4

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

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

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association of persons: Provided that

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

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association of persons: Provided that

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

11. The learned assessing officer has erred in invoking rule 8D(2)(iii) for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A without demonstrating satisfaction in terms of subsection 2 of section 14A as to why the disallowance made by the assessee under section 14A amounting to Rs. 1,72,86,259 is not correct having regard to the accounts

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

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. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

4. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 by making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of interest paid amounting to Rs. 78,11

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

4. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 by making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of interest paid amounting to Rs. 78,11

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

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

4. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 4.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess, labour welfare fund and contractor's welfare fund without appreciating that the impugned addition / disallowance under section 43B cannot be made in the process of computing the total income under section 11

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

4. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 4.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess, labour welfare fund and contractor's welfare fund without appreciating that the impugned addition / disallowance under section 43B cannot be made in the process of computing the total income under section 11

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

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

4 are in respect of the disallowance made under Section 14A on account of indirect administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned an dividend income of Rs.63,477, the Assessing Officer apart from the disallowance under Section 14A on account of interest expenditure also made

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance could not have been made in an order U/s.153A of the act. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,12,501/- under the provisions of section 45(4

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance could not have been made in an order U/s.153A of the act. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,12,501/- under the provisions of section 45(4