ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

d) Fulfillment of NFE by EO U/EHTP/STP/BTP units in regard to such exports shall be reckoned on basis of price at which goods are supplied by EOUs to other Exporter or other EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP/SEZ unit. IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 28 of 202 e) All export entitlements, including recognition

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

d) Fulfillment of NFE by EO U/EHTP/STP/BTP units in regard to such exports shall be reckoned on basis of price at which goods are supplied by EOUs to other Exporter or other EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP/SEZ unit. IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 28 of 202 e) All export entitlements, including recognition

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

d) In placing reliance on the DAO of AY 2009-10 without application of mind and without taking cognizance of the submissions/ arguments put forth during the assessment proceedings of AY 2013-14. 3. Denial of relief under section IOAA of the Act 3.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts

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

d) due to being its dangers nature.\n\n74. Therefore, the law recognizes such a situation and has provided a remedy\nto tackle such problems. The authorised officer has been given a discretion for\nthe reasons to be recorded in writing to pass a restraint order in respect of the\narticles, books and other material which he could not take

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits of the bank account maintained

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

131 being 5% of salary cost of CFO, 50% of salary cost of employees handling treasury functions and 10% of salary cost of CFC as voluntarily disallowed by the appellant under section 14A. 5.2 The ld CIT(A) in his order stated that the argument of the assessee that the investment in shares of the subsidiary company Infosys BPO Limited

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

131 being 5% of salary cost of CFO, 50% of salary cost of employees handling treasury functions and 10% of salary cost of CFC as voluntarily disallowed by the appellant under section 14A. 5.2 The ld CIT(A) in his order stated that the argument of the assessee that the investment in shares of the subsidiary company Infosys BPO Limited

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D-22 of Annexure A-18, the deletion of Rs. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 183 5,95,900/- and Rs.11,17,596/- from undisclosed income cannot be held to be unjustified. 40. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. AO himself stated at page 177 of the order as to when documents can be called as ‘dumb

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

d) due to being its dangers nature.\n74. Therefore, the law recognizes such a situation and has provided a remedy\nto tackle such problems. The authorised officer has been given a discretion for\nthe reasons to be recorded in writing to pass a restraint order in respect of the\narticles, books and other material which he could not take physical

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

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

131 ITR 659 (Guj.)]. 8.7 We may refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (supra). The Court observed : "While 'the basic requirements for invoking sections 37(1) and 80G are quite different', 'but nonetheless the two sections are not mutually exclusive'. Thus, there are overlapping areas between the donations given

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

131 of the act to the trustees and witnesses and from that he has gathered an information that the activities of the trust are not carried out in accordance with the law. Therefore, the learned ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 25 of 37 assessing officer sent a proposal for withdrawal of registration under section 12 A of the act. 28. Based