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 of brand building expenses at Rs.64,13,83,193/-. 23.1 Facts of the case are that during the year, the assessee incurred an amount of Rs. 84,44,61,455/- on account of brand building expenditure. The brand building expenditure were in the nature of subscription to research reports by research agencies and advisory services, participation / sponsorship in seminars

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 14A.” Following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals). 11. Ground Nos.5 & 6 are regarding the disallowance of interest in respect of capitalization of work-in-progress. 11.1 We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and the relevant

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance of Rs.65,94,145/-, the payment made towards reimbursement of amount recovered on behalf of the client in litigation, payment of official fee, payment for publication and trade fair services has to be deleted at the threshold itself as such payments do not attract the provisions of section

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(3) of the Act. There has been no allegation of suppression of sales, inflation of expenditure, or violation of provisions such as section 40A(2) of the Act. The accounts are fully vouched and supported by proper evidence. In such circumstances, the settled law is that the Revenue cannot substitute its own view of what profits ought to have

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

145,994 accepted by the appellant under the normal provisions and book profits of INR 571,589,387 under the provisions of 115JB of the Act (considering suo-moto disallowances). Disallowance under section

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed u/s. 43B of the Act. We observe that the assessee has recorded his turnover after deducting the service tax received and the service tax has been credited separately. In section 145

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of Rs.65,94,145/-, the payment made towards reimbursement of amount recovered on behalf of the client in litigation, payment of official fee, payment for publication and trade fair services has to be deleted at the threshold itself as such payments do not attract the provisions of section

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145 of the Act supports this method. Since the assessee shows income and expenditure on accrual basis, the related expenditure must be allowed under section 37 of the Act. He explained that at the end of each year, the assessee is required to create a provision for expenses for which invoices or bills are not yet received. In the present

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145 of the Act supports this method. Since the assessee shows income and expenditure on accrual basis, the related expenditure must be allowed under section 37 of the Act. He explained that at the end of each year, the assessee is required to create a provision for expenses for which invoices or bills are not yet received. In the present

DCIT vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowance can be made only when there is a case of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income and the Assessing Officer has not rendered any sustainable findings in this regard, in which case alone section 14A of the Act can be invoked. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that out of the total investment of approx

UNITED SPIRTIS LIMITED vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowance can be made only when there is a case of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income and the Assessing Officer has not rendered any sustainable findings in this regard, in which case alone section 14A of the Act can be invoked. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that out of the total investment of approx

UNITED SPIRITS LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowance can be made only when there is a case of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income and the Assessing Officer has not rendered any sustainable findings in this regard, in which case alone section 14A of the Act can be invoked. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that out of the total investment of approx

DCIT vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowance can be made only when there is a case of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income and the Assessing Officer has not rendered any sustainable findings in this regard, in which case alone section 14A of the Act can be invoked. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that out of the total investment of approx

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowance can be made only when there is a case of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income and the Assessing Officer has not rendered any sustainable findings in this regard, in which case alone section 14A of the Act can be invoked. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that out of the total investment of approx

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CA read with section 154 of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 42 of 62 8.1 These grounds are infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 9. Next ground Nos. 8 & 9 in AY in 2014-15 are with regard to payment towards technical service fee to it’s A.E. which

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CA read with section 154 of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 42 of 62 8.1 These grounds are infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 9. Next ground Nos. 8 & 9 in AY in 2014-15 are with regard to payment towards technical service fee to it’s A.E. which

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 145(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2.8 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition on account of income deferred from small customers and also upholding the decision of the AO that there is no scope for deferral of income. 2.9 Without prejudice to the above grounds

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 145(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2.8 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition on account of income deferred from small customers and also upholding the decision of the AO that there is no scope for deferral of income. 2.9 Without prejudice to the above grounds