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

127 was disallowed by the ld. AO. 29. The assessee is aggrieved and went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessing officer has erred in disallowing deduction claimed under section

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

section 80JJAA 127 taxmann.com 59 (Karnataka) Held against the assessee in assessee’s own Disallowance of Sub Contracting case by ITAT

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. 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.

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80 IB of the Act. 6.1 Following two issues arises from these grounds: Issue (a) Whether loss of one eligible undertaking is to be set off against the profits of another eligible undertaking? Issue (b) Whether the deduction claimed can be only against the business profits or can it be against the other heads

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019 by order dated 18.12.2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 on identical

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019 by order dated 18.12.2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 on identical

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 40(a) in relation to software expenses The Assessee had claimed software and AMC expenditure which were disallowed by the AO partly under sec 40(a) and partly treating as capital expenditure. However, post the order of the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)"), the AO passed the order giving effect dated 27 December

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

disallowance of Rs.171,07,416/-. Hence, we reproduce these 2 paras i.e., 4.5 and 4.6 from the order of the CIT(A). These paras read as under:- “4.5 It may be mentioned that ownership and use of aircraft for the appellant's business are not disputed by the AO. In addition to the above, the appellant also earned income

M/S MOONFROG LABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

disallowance under section 14A was deleted by the CIT(A) in the absence of exempt income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that for purposes of marketing its games, the assessee advertise/market its games via Facebook (a prominent social media platform) and other platforms to create visibility

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

127 TAXMANN.COM 59 (Karnataka). The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). Page 44 of 67 70. We have heard the rival submissions. The issue with regard to deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance under sec 80JJAA, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Texas Instruments India (P.) Ltd. (127 taxmann.com 59 (Karnataka HC)), has upheld the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited v Addi CIT(LTU) [IT(TP)A No. 169/Ban g12014] and held that amendment by Finance Act 2018 is retrospective in nature. The Court

M/S SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs.15,93,573/- by invoking rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without demonstrating as to how the claim of the Appellant regarding attribution of expenses relatable to income not chargeable to tax is incorrect. General Grounds Of Objection:- 1. The lover authorities have erred in: a Not giving credit

BANGALORE TRUF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of expenses made by the AO in respect of prize money / stake money paid to the winning horse owners. The appellant relied on the single Judge Order of Karnataka High Court (supra), to say that withholding tax on the price money paid to winning Horse owner is not applicable. However, the AO has relied on the appeal filed

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

127 taxmann.com 59 (Karnataka) held that neither provisions of 194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

127 taxmann.com 59 (Karnataka) held that neither provisions of 194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Disallowance of Rs. 14,17,500/- made by the Assessing Officer, being deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in respect of contributions made towards corporate social responsibility (“CSR”), as not being an allowable deduction. Software Development Services 7. Net mark-up on cost earned by the Assessee as computed by the TPO Operating

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is further bad in law as the computation

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is further bad in law as the computation