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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

139 of the Act. This ground of the assessees is allowed. 7. Next common ground No.6 in the three appeals i.e. ITA No.1145/Bang/2022 for the AY 2010-11 & ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed only if the return of the previous year for which Page 5 of 9 set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P of the Act by virtue of provision contained in Sec. 80AC of the Act was left out to be pleaded in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority due to oversight. The belated filing of ITR will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the benefit u/s. 80P of the Act as held

M/S. SINDHU CARGO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance; 9. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in not invoking provisions of section 133(6) to get relevant information on genuineness of the claim of deduction; 10. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to allow deduction of expenses without considering that the same has been routed through banking channels (wherever it exceeded statutory limit

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.

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n15. 10. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

139 ITR 806 (Guj.)] at Pages 820-822. (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP)] at pages 156-157. (c ) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521] at pages 527 & 538-539." 59. On a final note, India's change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot be a fact

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

9 of 14 been filed belatedly and beyond the dates stipulated under section 139 of the Act. There is no doubt or dispute in this regard. Hence, the claim under section 80P could not have been putforth in the light of provisions contained in section 80AC(ii) as it stood post amendment with effect from 1-4-2018. 5. Learned

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

9 of 14 been filed belatedly and beyond the dates stipulated under section 139 of the Act. There is no doubt or dispute in this regard. Hence, the claim under section 80P could not have been putforth in the light of provisions contained in section 80AC(ii) as it stood post amendment with effect from 1-4-2018. 5. Learned

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing

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

139(1), is liable for disallowance. This is primarily due to the mandate of Section 80AC, which requires timely filing for all Chapter VI-A deductions, including Section 80P, effective from April 1, 2018. b On or after April 1, 2021, the . disallowance of such a claim during ) automated processing under Section Page 9

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

9. Ground nos. 14-21 are in respect of following two issues. 1) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription fee paid to M/s. Forrester Research and M/s. Gartner amounting to Rs.2,82,09,462/- and Rs.3,17,31,606/-. 2) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) / 40(a)(i) in respect of software expenses amounting to Rs.30

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

9. Ground nos. 14-21 are in respect of following two issues. 1) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription fee paid to M/s. Forrester Research and M/s. Gartner amounting to Rs.2,82,09,462/- and Rs.3,17,31,606/-. 2) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) / 40(a)(i) in respect of software expenses amounting to Rs.30

KALIA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,BELHANGADY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2012-13

9) of the IT Act clearly reveals that even under those provisions, the restrictions placed with regard to the accrual of interest on amounts assessed on an assessee is with regard to the date of filing of a return within the time prescribed under the IT Act. Under section 234A of the IT Act, however, although the provision suggests that

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowance of interest paid on borrowings to acquire the subject property which was sold. 3. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the deduction claimed u/s 24(b) in computing income from House Property is different and the deduction of interest claimed in computing capital gains is different, as such none of them exclude the operation of the other

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration.” 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands