INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act not only covers amount payable as on the last day of the previous year but also covers amount actually paid. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), we uphold the orders of the authorities below and consequently dismiss ground No.2.2 raised by the assessee. 8. Ground No.3.1 - Disallowance

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

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n6. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

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

Disallowance u/s 43B (Ground 4) (4.1 to 4.3) 9. The assessee during the relevant AY 2012-2013 did not remit statutory dues amounting to Rs.7,63,44,091 before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee accordingly added back a sum of Rs.7,14,16,112 in the computation of income since the same

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)

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n6. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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.

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n6. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

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

112(6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n\n6. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

Disallowance of payments based on Project Spirit Report (ground 8) (Corporate Tax Issue) 13. Brief facts of the issue raised in the above ground are as follows: During the financial year 2014-2015, the Board of Directors of the assessee had mandated an inquiry in relation 49 IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/s.United Spirits Limited. to matters connected with audit qualifications

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of residential units having built up area of 1500 sq. ft. or less in ‘Brigade Gateway’ and ‘Brigade Metropolis’ housing projects. We, therefore, dismiss grounds No.2 to 6 raised by revenue in this appeal. ” Since the issue before us is similar to the issue in the earlier assessment year

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri George George Km/S.Windsor Gardens Pvt. Ltd., No.81, 36Th Cross, 6Th Main, 5Th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041 ….Appellant. Pan Aaacw 3001E Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt.Suman Lunkar, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. A. Shankar Prasad K, Addl. Cit.

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempted income. A similar view was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. reported in 101 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi) and SLP filed by revenue was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2019) 112

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

disallowances under Section 14A and 80G of the Act and prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative objected to the submissions and supported the order of TPO and DRP and relied on the judicial decisions. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The LdAr made submissions for exclusion of 3 comparables

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the entire amount disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) consists of following categories:  It was submitted by assessee that on Rs.2,44,31,822/- applicable taxes were deducted and remitted to the Government account after 31/03/2012 as indicated in the statement furnished before the Ld.ITO(TDS).  It was further submitted

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the entire amount disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) consists of following categories:  It was submitted by assessee that on Rs.2,44,31,822/- applicable taxes were deducted and remitted to the Government account after 31/03/2012 as indicated in the statement furnished before the Ld.ITO(TDS).  It was further submitted

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40(a) when TDS liability on such expenses has arisen due to retrospective amendment. 18. Disallowance of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation —INR21,112

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Disallowance on provision for leave encashment: 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in adding back provision for leave encashment amounting to INR 82,356,024 for computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed the sublease expenditure in relation to the premises from which sublease rental income was earned. The Ld. AO also denied the expenses to be reduced from the profits and gains of business and profession. Page 50 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 100. The DRP while considering this issue directed the Ld. AO to grant the sublease expenses

UNITED BREWERIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 14A on account of interest expenditure when the assessee has not earned any dividend income we would like to deal with the issue on the point that whether the assessee was having sufficient fund for making the investment in the shares and mutual funds. The assessee has filed the following details of investments and its own funds as well

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication