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 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii); but set aside the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2

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 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii); but set aside the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2

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 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii); but set aside the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2

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

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

2. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, manufacture of sugar and also generation of power through wind turbines. While completing the assessments under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer has basically made disallowance under Section 14A

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

2. The appellant denies itself liable to be taxed over and above the total income returned by the appellant of Rs.19,52,67,485 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in restricting the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 14A

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 read with rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 8,02,96,882 and making a disallowance

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 read with rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 8,02,96,882 and making a disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance under Section_14A_r/w_Rule 8D(2)(ii) without appreciating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

2) shall also apply in relation to\na case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred\nby him in relation to income which does not form part of the total\nincome under this Act.\nProvided that nothing contained in this Section shall empower the\nAssessing Officer either to reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) without appreciating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

section 14A(2) of the Act for making a disallowance under Rule 8D. 8.4.3 As per Rule 8D(2)(ii), disallowance

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

disallowance under section 14A without demonstrating satisfaction in terms of subsection 2 of section 14A as to why the disallowance

MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A(2) r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly disallowance u/s. 14A being 1% of annual average of monthly average was made

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A(2) r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly disallowance u/s. 14A being 1% of annual average of monthly average was made

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A(2) r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly disallowance u/s. 14A being 1% of annual average of monthly average was made

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A(2) r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly disallowance u/s. 14A being 1% of annual average of monthly average was made

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 14A(2) r.w. Rule 8D. Accordingly disallowance u/s. 14A being 1% of annual average of monthly average was made

MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

14A (2) of the Act and it is only on being dissatisfied with the disallowance offered by the assessee, can Rule 8D of the Rules be invoked to compute the disallowance. 9. Paragraph 9 of Bajaj Finance Ltd. (supra) reads as under: "9. Question No. (ii) pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

14A (2) of the Act and it is only on being dissatisfied with the disallowance offered by the assessee, can Rule 8D of the Rules be invoked to compute the disallowance. 9. Paragraph 9 of Bajaj Finance Ltd. (supra) reads as under: "9. Question No. (ii) pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section