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

disallowance made by the\nappellant.\n\n11. Insofar as the addition made based on the seizure of cash, the\nLd.CIT(A) had deleted the said addition for A.Y. 2020-21 on the ground that\nthe unaccounted sale of gunny bags were duly recorded and accounted for\nin the books and therefore no addition could be made u/s.69A

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

disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of flats which are more than 1500 sq.ft. of built-up area. ITA Nos.1275 & 1323/Bang/2014 M/s.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., Page 13 of 25 The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. Having gone through the records and having perused the decision of this Tribunal

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act be added to the cost of mutual fund units. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the assessee has added the interest to the cost of the shares held such interest to be treated as part of cost and reduced from

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR POWER CORPORATION LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act be added to the cost of mutual fund units. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the assessee has added the interest to the cost of the shares held such interest to be treated as part of cost and reduced from

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act be added to the cost of mutual fund units. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the assessee has added the interest to the cost of the shares held such interest to be treated as part of cost and reduced from

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

disallowance in this case. What the Revenue urges essentially is that the unless the employer/assessee acquires the shares from a third party, it cannot claim any deduction and that expenditure claimed for allotment or issue of ESOP is merely notional. This Court is of the opinion that such an argument ignores the realities of functioning of commercial entities who would

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80- IDorsection 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80- IDorsection 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowing the claim of\nexemption under section 11 while processing the return under section\n143(1) of the Act without appreciating that the adjustments u/s 143(1) are\nonly restricted to arithmetical errors and incorrect claims and there is\nno power to deny exemption u/s 11 for delay in filing audit report while\nprocessing return

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowable u/s. 143(1) of the Act. There was also several judicial precedents relied upon. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) categorically held that for the impugned Assessment Order, provisions of section 80AC are applicable and as the Assessee has not filed its return of income in time and further no application u/s. 119

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

119/- only TBC-Japan however the erroneously made proposal for disallowances of Royalty payment at Rs. 45,83,94,469/- only. 10. The learned DRP rejected all other objections raised by the assessee and confirmed the action of TPO except the objection regarding the amount of royalty. Accordingly, the learned DRP directed the TPO to verify the actual amount

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

disallowance under section 14A stands deleted. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” Admittedly for year under consideration 11. Ground nos. 12 to 14 (A.Y. 2012-13) are consequential in nature. Page 15 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

disallowance under section 14A stands deleted. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” Admittedly for year under consideration 11. Ground nos. 12 to 14 (A.Y. 2012-13) are consequential in nature. Page 15 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance under section 14A cannot be made: (a) CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 204 (Punj. &Har.) (b) CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 630 (Guj) (c) DIT(IT) v.BNP Paribas SA reported in 214 Taxman 548 (Born); (d) Yatish Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported

TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

disallowance under section 14A of the Act could be made if no exempt income was earned by the assessee. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:- “9. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view

M/S KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

119 and submitted that the burden of proof lies on the person who alleges the existence of fact and if the assessee claimes deduction in respect of any expenditure then onus would be on the assessee to prove that the conditions for its allowbility are satisfied. On the other hand, if the revenue who wants to disallow the expenditure under

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital media expenses 17,95,97,760 Disallowance of TV advertisement expenses 34,35,36,727 Disallowance of sponsorship expenses 661,27,35,644 The AO accordingly proposed to assess the income of the assessee at Rs.1122,29,03,119