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

9 , issued by the CBOT, under the heading "Levy of income-tax at maximum marginal rate in the case of charitable and religious trusts which forfeit tax exemption'. Paragraph 28.6 of the aforesaid circular is reproduced as follows: “28.6 It may be noted that new sub-section I) inserted in section 161 of the IT Act, which provides for taxation

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

9 of 22 borrowing, on which the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.36.70 Crores for raising the share capital, and proceeds to the extent of Rs.403.67 Crores were invested in Mutual Funds which generated exempt dividend income of Rs.7.63 Crores. According to the learned DR, in view of the above, the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

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

9 of 22 borrowing, on which the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.36.70 Crores for raising the share capital, and proceeds to the extent of Rs.403.67 Crores were invested in Mutual Funds which generated exempt dividend income of Rs.7.63 Crores. According to the learned DR, in view of the above, the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

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

9 of 22 borrowing, on which the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.36.70 Crores for raising the share capital, and proceeds to the extent of Rs.403.67 Crores were invested in Mutual Funds which generated exempt dividend income of Rs.7.63 Crores. According to the learned DR, in view of the above, the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 11.2 Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12. In ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, the assessee has raised one more ground that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 11.2 Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12. In ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, the assessee has raised one more ground that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 11.2 Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12. In ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, the assessee has raised one more ground that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 11.2 Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12. In ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, the assessee has raised one more ground that

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 11.2 Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12. In ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, the assessee has raised one more ground that

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

9. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, the impugned transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted in entirety. Grounds on disallowance under section 14A 10. The learned assessing officer has erred in computing disallowance of Rs. 3,30,96,246 under section Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 14A of the Income

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

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

13. The assessee has also raised another ground for the Assessment Year 2010-11 being Ground No.6 as under : “ 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

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

disallowing the reimbursement of salary amounting to Rs 36,87,29,475 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act paid by the Appellant to the overseas Group affiliates on secondment of employees. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and facts, by erroneously holding that the payment to overseas group entities, towards reimbursement of salary, amounting

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S.VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DYDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts