R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the act. The brief facts leading to the controversy, are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Adarsh Developers on 13/12/2006. During the course of search certain documents pertaining to Sri S. L. Natraj, one of the associate of Sri Jayaram, partner

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance under section 14 A of the act to the extent of ₹ 6,452,727/–. xxii. On 22 October 2018 , the principal Commissioner of income tax issued a notice under section 263 of the act to the appellant which was responded to on 3 December 2018. The learned PCIT passed an order under section 263 of the act on 28th

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 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

3,29,71,219 Total 8,02,96,882 Total amount to be disallowed 8,02,96,882 IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 85 Less: amount already disallowed in Return 37,16,131 Balance amount to be disallowed 7,65,80,751 4.9 In view of the above details, a sum of Rs.7

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

3,29,71,219 Total 8,02,96,882 Total amount to be disallowed 8,02,96,882 IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 85 Less: amount already disallowed in Return 37,16,131 Balance amount to be disallowed 7,65,80,751 4.9 In view of the above details, a sum of Rs.7

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

131; comprising 50% of salary of employee plus 5% of salary of Senior Vice President. The Assessing Officer, however, computed the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act at Rs.35,20,566; which comprised 50% of the salary of both the employee s and the Senior Vice President and added the same as ‘Income from other sources’. Before

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.67,54,114/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.2 The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO erred in making adjustment under section 40A of the Act to the income accepted and declared by the Assessee on the estimation made by the Ld AO during the search proceedings

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.67,54,114/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.2 The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO erred in making adjustment under section 40A of the Act to the income accepted and declared by the Assessee on the estimation made by the Ld AO during the search proceedings

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.67,54,114/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.2 The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO erred in making adjustment under section 40A of the Act to the income accepted and declared by the Assessee on the estimation made by the Ld AO during the search proceedings

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.67,54,114/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.2 The Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO erred in making adjustment under section 40A of the Act to the income accepted and declared by the Assessee on the estimation made by the Ld AO during the search proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made towards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's interest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments. For the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed.” Assessment Year

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made towards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's interest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments. For the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed.” Assessment Year

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

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

3,42,15,00,397 64,35,473 1 Assessment proceedings 6.2. Vide notice under section 142(1) dated 30.1.2013, the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D should not be made in respect of the dividends received during the year. The assessee vide written submissions dated 13.2.2013 explained that

ACIT vs. M/S VSL MINING CO. P. LTD.,,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

131 of the Act were recorded by the Department from Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain; with reference to materials found and seized from his premises; in respect of which he stated that some of the transactions related to unaccounted purchase and sale of iron of the assessee in the case on hand. He also submitted that there were certain payments made

V.S.L. MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

131 of the Act were recorded by the Department from Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain; with reference to materials found and seized from his premises; in respect of which he stated that some of the transactions related to unaccounted purchase and sale of iron of the assessee in the case on hand. He also submitted that there were certain payments made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos.780 to 785/Bang/2024 are dismissed. ITA Nos.780 to 785/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024 M/s. Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore ITA Nos.786 to 791/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.19 to 23/Bang/2024 M/s. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 26 CO Nos.15 to 18/Bang/2024