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

145(3) no further disallowance can be made for the expenditure for computation of business income. The pattern of assessment under the Act is given by section

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

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

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

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

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

3,22,690 and in respect of the balance sum of Rs. 1,45,000 on which TDS was not made, M/s. Ample Technologies (P) Ltd has confirmed that the revenue from Infosys Ltd has been taken into account for determination of its total income. Thus, in view of the above, entire disallowance of Rs. 4,67,690 should

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

3,22,690 and in respect of the balance sum of Rs. 1,45,000 on which TDS was not made, M/s. Ample Technologies (P) Ltd has confirmed that the revenue from Infosys Ltd has been taken into account for determination of its total income. Thus, in view of the above, entire disallowance of Rs. 4,67,690 should

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B V INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing the entire amount of salaries and wages incurred in foreign currency amounting to INR 14,10,000 without appreciating the fact that such salaries and wages comprise of a) reimbursement of certain employee welfare related expenses amounting to INR 9,18,000 and b) salary expenses of international assignees amounting to INR 4,92,000. B. Grounds of appeal

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

AMBIKA GHORPADE,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

145(3) of the Act before completing the assessment. 13. The authorities below erred in relying on material A/BSG/01 & A/BSG/02 which was already held as belonging to Mr.Bharat S Ghorpade against whom separate proceedings u/s 153C was initiated and completed. 14. The authorities below erred in placing reliance on the statements given by Mr.Kartikeya M Ghorpade and Mrs.Ambika Ghorpade which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

INFOSYS LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

DY.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) the Axon Directors fail to post the Scheme Document by 29th September, 2008 (or such later date as the Target and the Bidder may agree); or 4) Axon materially breaches its non-solicitation undertakings referred in the agreement. 5.5 He submitted that, the acquisition did not materialize and in accordance with the above clause, Axon had to make