INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

124 Taxman, 384(Bombay) held that the\nprohibitory order placed under section 132(3) of the Act as invalid. The\nrelevant finding of the Hon’ble court reads as under:\nIn the present case, the cupboard in which 45 kgs. of silver articles were kept\nwas sealed by making an order under section 132(3). The authorised officers\nwere obviously

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

124 Taxman, 384(Bombay) held that the\nprohibitory order placed under section 132(3) of the Act as invalid. The\nrelevant finding of the Hon’ble court reads as under:\nIn the present case, the cupboard in which 45 kgs. of silver articles were kept\nwas sealed by making an order under section 132(3). The authorised officers\nwere obviously

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)

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA Nos.645

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 Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

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

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

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

disallowance is upheld under section 40(a)(i), then the sum of Rs. 262,02,26,125 has to be allowed as deduction for the AY 2014-15 as the TDS has been paid during the previous year 2013-14 Allowability of deduction u/s 35(2AB) Wipro Ltd v CIT 382 ITR 179 (Karnataka

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

disallowances of expenses and deductions resulted in addition to the income, have been adjudicated in subsequent paragraphs after hearing the assessee and allowing the sufficient opportunity and therefore, in our view, the assessee should not have any grievance on this account, the objections are accordingly rejected.” IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 4.3 Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue, placed reliance

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

3,85,15,497/- for sponsoring cricketing events held during 2008 to ICC. The said amount was proposed to be disallowed by the AO in the Draft Assessment Order, for the following reasons: - (i) Similar expense has been disallowed in the earlier years as part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses. (ii) Assessee has been bearing

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

3,22,690 and in respect of the balance sum of Rs. 1,45,000 on which TDS was not made, M/s. Ample Technologies (P) Ltd has confirmed that the revenue from Infosys Ltd has been taken into account for determination of its total income. Thus, in view of the above, entire disallowance of Rs. 4,67,690 should

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

3,22,690 and in respect of the balance sum of Rs. 1,45,000 on which TDS was not made, M/s. Ample Technologies (P) Ltd has confirmed that the revenue from Infosys Ltd has been taken into account for determination of its total income. Thus, in view of the above, entire disallowance of Rs. 4,67,690 should

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

3,69,70,354/- which was claimed in the return of income. 10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore has erred in not allowing double taxation relief on account of variation of deduction under section 10A and consequent increase in income, as confirmed / sustained by the appellate order. 11.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals

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

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

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.

3,85,15,497/- for sponsoring cricketing events held during 2008 to ICC. The said amount was proposed to be disallowed by the AO in the Draft Assessment Order, for the following reasons: - (i) Similar expense has been disallowed in the earlier years as part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses. (ii) Assessee has been bearing

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

3) of the Act. [PB Pg.275-283]. As the year under consideration is not the year of formation of SEZ Unit S-11, the condition of M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 17 of 29 splitting up cannot be examined. This principle is upheld in the following judicial precedents: i. Bajai Tempo

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue\nstands dismissed

3)/144B of the Act on September 7, 1977 after making\ncertain additions and disallowances to the returned income. On\nappeal assessee contended that the assessing authority had no\njurisdiction to pass the assessment order inasmuch as the\nassessment file stood transferred from Income Tax Officer,\nCentral Circle-I, Kanpur to the Inspecting Assistant\nCommissioner Range-D, Kanpur

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

124 of the Act is reproduced hereunder : JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction-- (a) in respect of any person carrying