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

155(14A) read with rule 128(4), foreign tax credit in respect of disputed foreign tax is allowed when the dispute is finally settled. Therefore, appellant is eligible for the claim of FTC in respect of taxes presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO) amounting to Rs 154,36,96,035 (including Rs. 52,10,92,957 in relation

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

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

19 of 34\n\naccount of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently under dispute with\nAustralian Tax Authorities) in respect of income on which the deduction\nunder section 10AA of the Act has been claimed.\n\n11.1 The AO disallowed the foreign tax credit related to incomes\neligible for deduction under section 10AA for the reason that

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

19 of 28 payments made to the individual truck drivers exceeded the threshold limit of Rs.35,000/- observed as follows: "In the present case, the payment made by the assessee to the individual truck driver has not been disputed. It is not the case of Department that the payments made by the assessee are not genuine or the payees

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

19. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld AO disallowing under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, the payment of Rs.3,62,34,473/-made by the Appellant to Heineken towards reimbursement of Salary and other related payments of expatriate experts seconded by the AE. 20. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

19. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld AO disallowing under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, the payment of Rs.3,62,34,473/-made by the Appellant to Heineken towards reimbursement of Salary and other related payments of expatriate experts seconded by the AE. 20. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

155 taxmann.com 45 (Karnataka) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has considered the provisions which has been inserted with effect from Finance Bill 2023 also. The Hon’ble High Court has recorded the facts in that case that the petitioner company has received a benefit by waiver of loans, the interest on such waiver of the loans though has been

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

19 relevant to assessment year 2019-20. According to the AO, the shares has not been allotted in the assessment year under consideration and the amount paid as an advance to acquire shares to M/s. Akarshak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AIPL) for the period of pre- acquisition during the assessment year under consideration. As such, the said interest payment

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

19) as under:- "It is most humbly submitted that the concept 'profits and gains' is a wider concept than the concept of 'income'. The profits and gains/loss are arrived at after making actual expenses incurred from the figure of sales by the assesses. It does not include any depreciation and investment allowance, as admittedly these are not the expenses actually

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

19 QBD 647 that in its ordinary sense plant includes whatever apparatus is used by a businessman for carrying on his business - not his stock-in-trade which he buys or makes for sale; but all goods and chattels, fixed or movable, live or dead, which he keeps for permanent employment in his business. In that case, this Court further

BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

19. On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 20. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that that the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act is covered in favour of the assessee

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance made by the A.O. The CIT(A) held that the software development activity cannot be considered as “manufacture” as defined in section 2(29BA) of the I.T.Act. As regards the issue of quantum of deduction, the CIT(A) held that the same is academic in nature and did not require any adjudication. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

19) as under:- "It is most humbly submitted that the concept 'profits and gains' is a wider concept than the concept of 'income'. The profits and gains/loss are arrived at after making actual expenses incurred from the figure of sales by the assesses. It does not include any depreciation and investment allowance, as admittedly these are not the expenses actually

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7.1.1, BANGALORE vs. TALLY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

155 ITR 120 therefore, we remit this issue to the file of the AO for examination afresh. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The next issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r.w.r

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed and therefore it should be sufficient enough to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the Act. 18. In the rejoinder, the ld. AR vehemently submitted that decisions of Gujarat High Court though are on section 263 of the Act, they apply with equal force in the reassessment proceedings also because the same issue cannot be reagitated when

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed and therefore it should be sufficient enough to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the Act. 18. In the rejoinder, the ld. AR vehemently submitted that decisions of Gujarat High Court though are on section 263 of the Act, they apply with equal force in the reassessment proceedings also because the same issue cannot be reagitated when

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

19) as under:-\n\"It is most humbly submitted that the concept 'profits and gains' is a wider\nconcept than the concept of 'income'. The profits and gains/loss are arrived at\nafter making actual expenses incurred from the figure of sales by the\nassessee. It does not include any depreciation and investment allowance, as\nadmittedly these are not the expenses

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

19. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before proceeding, we will have a look at the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act:- ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 9 of 23 “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect