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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) 22. The AO noticed during the assessment proceeding that out of total interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581, the assessee has deducted tax in respect of Rs. 11,07,053 and the balance interest expenditure of Rs. 67,04,528 was paid without deduction of tax at source. The AO asked the assessee

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) 22. The AO noticed during the assessment proceeding that out of total interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581, the assessee has deducted tax in respect of Rs. 11,07,053 and the balance interest expenditure of Rs. 67,04,528 was paid without deduction of tax at source. The AO asked the assessee

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

disallowance under section 80IB(10) at Rs.8,07,80,427/-. 2.3 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee has claimed 1/5th of expenses incurred towards increase in authorised share capital amounting to Rs.13,20,000/- as deduction under section 35D of the act. The Ld.AO called upon assessee to explain why the same should be allowed as an admissible expenditure

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.

disallowances under Section 14A and 80G of the Act and prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative objected to the submissions and supported the order of TPO and DRP and relied on the judicial decisions. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The LdAr made submissions for exclusion of 3 comparables

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year\nGround Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1053/Bang/2023

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

178 dated 12/10/2022 in case of checkmate services private limited deduction in respect of the delay deposit of employee's contribution on provident fund et cetera ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli could not be summarily disallowed by invoking provisions of section

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

178 dated 12/10/2022 in case of checkmate services private limited deduction in respect of the delay deposit of employee's contribution on provident fund et cetera ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli could not be summarily disallowed by invoking provisions of section

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\n\nPage 14 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n\nAppeal No.\n\n Assessment Year\n\nGround Number\n\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\n\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly