SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT 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

disallowed these expenses and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the definition of "income" for the purpose of section 11 differs from the definition of "total income" under Section 2(45) of the Act. The assessee argued that

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

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

6 of 23 be limited to the extent of excessive payments made to the specified entities. Furthermore, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO), concluding that the payments made to the specified persons were neither excessive nor in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant observations of the learned

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

6 of 23 be limited to the extent of excessive payments made to the specified entities. Furthermore, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO), concluding that the payments made to the specified persons were neither excessive nor in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant observations of the learned

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

6 thus require disclosure of interest paid in respect of borrowed capital [36(1)(iii)] which is disallowable under section 36. It does not require disclosure of interest paid allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii). The interest expenditure of 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

6 thus require disclosure of interest paid in respect of borrowed capital [36(1)(iii)] which is disallowable under section 36. It does not require disclosure of interest paid allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii). The interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11

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.

6 of 25 the act and the disallowance made under section 80IB(10) of the act, by the Ld.AO. 2.11 Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld.AO assessee is in appeal before us now. 2.12 The Ld.AR submitted that, Ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is in respect

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 153 of the Act. The assessee had also objected to the disallowance of exemption made u/s. 11 of the Act even though the facts are similar and no business activities are carried on by the assessee. The assessee had also challenged the additions in respect of the Slum Improvement Cess and Labour Welfare Fund

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 153 of the Act. The assessee had also objected to the disallowance of exemption made u/s. 11 of the Act even though the facts are similar and no business activities are carried on by the assessee. The assessee had also challenged the additions in respect of the Slum Improvement Cess and Labour Welfare Fund

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

6 of 22 3. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, dated 31.10.2017 for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the assessee filed the appeals for these three Assessment Years before the Tribunal. The revised grounds of appeal that are to be adjudicated in these appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 as under: General

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

6 of 22 3. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, dated 31.10.2017 for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the assessee filed the appeals for these three Assessment Years before the Tribunal. The revised grounds of appeal that are to be adjudicated in these appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 as under: General

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

6 of 22 3. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, dated 31.10.2017 for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the assessee filed the appeals for these three Assessment Years before the Tribunal. The revised grounds of appeal that are to be adjudicated in these appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 as under: General

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

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

6. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in conforming the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.21,03,510 being interest calculated at the rate of 10% on the increase in work-in-progress amounting to Rs.2,10,35,105 (i.e. Rs.9,21,96,773 minus Rs.7

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section

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

6. disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs. 1,45,000 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not restricting the 7. impugned disallowance, if any, to Rs.43,500 being 30% of Rs. 1,45,000 as the amendment to section

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

6. disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs. 1,45,000 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not restricting the 7. impugned disallowance, if any, to Rs.43,500 being 30% of Rs. 1,45,000 as the amendment to section

VIJAYKIRAN EDUCATIONALTRUST,BANGALORE KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 11 (6) of the Act but no submission/ reply was furnished by the assessee. Further, a detailed show cause notice alongwith draft assessment order was issued to the assessee by the AO on 16.04.2021 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why amount of Rs. 6,67,36,705/- may not be disallowed

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

11,231 from total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10AA in respect of SEZ units at Chennai (Unit 2), Trivandrum, Mysore, Hyderabad and Jaipur, for which deduction under section 10AA has been allowed. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, communication expenses should be reduced from total turnover also in computing deduction under section 10AA

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

11(i)(a). On the other hand, it is not the case of the assessee to argue that for the purpose of claiming 15% of income set-apart/accumulation, income to be reckoned on the basis of gross receipts, but in the event of assessee losing the exemption, the income will be recognized on the basis of net surplus/book profits