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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5 or 5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5 or 5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5 or 5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5 or 5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

139(1) of the Act and therefore as per section 80AC of the Act, the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the assessee read as follows: 1. The important question

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

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\nThus, the facts of the case

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.

5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n8. 6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently in as much as while they\nchose to disturb

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

5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n\nPage 13 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n15. 6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, ADARAKATTI,LAKSHMESHWAR TALUK GADAG DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 139(1)/139(4) or u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The AO added an amount of Rs. 5

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 36(1)(vii) & (viia) and Rule 6ABA and observed that the emphasis is on the advances made and not advances outstanding as on 31st March, 2014 and deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is only on the incremental advances. After considering the reply of the assessee in response to notice u/s. 142(1), the AO recalculated disallowance

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 36(1)(vii) & (viia) and Rule 6ABA and observed that the emphasis is on the advances made and not advances outstanding as on 31st March, 2014 and deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is only on the incremental advances. After considering the reply of the assessee in response to notice u/s. 142(1), the AO recalculated disallowance

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

disallowance of set-off of brought forward excess application from earlier years as follows: The explanation (5) was introduced to section 11 only by o Finance Act, 2021 where the set-off was not permitted w.e.f 1 April 2021. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that the calculation of income required

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

disallowance of set-off of brought forward excess application from earlier years as follows: The explanation (5) was introduced to section 11 only by o Finance Act, 2021 where the set-off was not permitted w.e.f 1 April 2021. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that the calculation of income required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed the foreign tax credit related to incomes eligible for deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd v DCIT 382 ITR 179 which has allowed the foreign tax credit related to incomes eligible for deduction under section 10AA has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

5. Aggrieved with the same assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A held that the learned assessing officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80 P of the act because the tax return was filed after the due date specified in section 139

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

5. Aggrieved with the same assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A held that the learned assessing officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80 P of the act because the tax return was filed after the due date specified in section 139

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

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

5. Aggrieved with the same assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT - A. The learned CIT - A held that the learned assessing officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80 P of the act because the tax return was filed after the due date specified in section 139

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

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