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

disallowance under section 14 of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for Assessment Year 2008-09 are allowed

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

disallowance under section 14 of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for Assessment Year 2008-09 are allowed

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.21,03,510 being interest calculated at the rate of 10% on the increase in work-in-progress amounting to Rs.2,10,35,105 (i.e. Rs.9,21,96,773 minus Rs.7,11,61,668) instead of deleting the entire disallowance under the facts and circumstances of the case.” During the course

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14

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

section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14

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

disallowance under section 14A as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) relying on certain decisions and Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.2.2014. Following the DRP directions, the ld.AO has made an addition of Rs.1,58,09,987 under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii). IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 14

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

disallowance under section 14A as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) relying on certain decisions and Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.2.2014. Following the DRP directions, the ld.AO has made an addition of Rs.1,58,09,987 under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii). IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 14

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.

section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14

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

14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there was no 16 amount payable as on 31st March Not Pressed 2012 Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No Disallowance under section

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

Section 195 of the 14 IT(TP)A Nos.102 & 233/Bang/2013 Infosys Limited Act. Respectfully, following the aforesaid decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Synopsys International Old Ltd. (supra) and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra), we uphold the disallowance

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

section 37 of the act the Assessing Officer had separately made disallowances of Rs.99,60,600/- out of the total expenses claimed and again by estimating disallowance under the provisions of the rule 8D of the rules, the same expenditure has been considered twice for disallowance. 14

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

section 37 of the act the Assessing Officer had separately made disallowances of Rs.99,60,600/- out of the total expenses claimed and again by estimating disallowance under the provisions of the rule 8D of the rules, the same expenditure has been considered twice for disallowance. 14

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

section 37 of the act the Assessing Officer had separately made disallowances of Rs.99,60,600/- out of the total expenses claimed and again by estimating disallowance under the provisions of the rule 8D of the rules, the same expenditure has been considered twice for disallowance. 14

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

14 M/s.United Breweries Limited. Bench of the Tribunal,(supra), we hold that the disallowance should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. We direct accordingly.” 7.5 In view of the above order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-2014, we hold that the disallowance should be restricted

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

section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14

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

disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement was made, the benefit of claim u/s 10AA from the old SEZ cannot be allowed. 5. The CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to assessing officer on issue relating to section 80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

disallowance made by Ld.AO under section 14 A of the Act. 8.1. At the outset Ld.AR submitted that there is no exempt

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, if any, should not be made in respect of payments actually made during the year under 8 IT(TP)A Nos.799 & 942/Bang/2015 Infosys Limited consideration. This issue is no longer res integra as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Service Vs. CIT (supra) has held that