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 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

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

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and also advances given in the course of carrying on business for procurement of goods and services. It was stated that and circumstances for making the claim along with account extracts were submitted before the Assessing Officer even at the time of assessment vide letter dt.19.11.2008 and other such correspondences placed

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and also advances given in the course of carrying on business for procurement of goods and services. It was stated that and circumstances for making the claim along with account extracts were submitted before the Assessing Officer even at the time of assessment vide letter dt.19.11.2008 and other such correspondences placed

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and also advances given in the course of carrying on business for procurement of goods and services. It was stated that and circumstances for making the claim along with account extracts were submitted before the Assessing Officer even at the time of assessment vide letter dt.19.11.2008 and other such correspondences placed

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and also advances given in the course of carrying on business for procurement of goods and services. It was stated that and circumstances for making the claim along with account extracts were submitted before the Assessing Officer even at the time of assessment vide letter dt.19.11.2008 and other such correspondences placed

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and also advances given in the course of carrying on business for procurement of goods and services. It was stated that and circumstances for making the claim along with account extracts were submitted before the Assessing Officer even at the time of assessment vide letter dt.19.11.2008 and other such correspondences placed

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

disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 10. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned AO erred in giving credit of tax deducted at, source of INR 6,27,13,539 instead of INR 6,61,14,300 as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income. 11. Penalty proceedings under section

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

disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 10. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned AO erred in giving credit of tax deducted at, source of INR 6,27,13,539 instead of INR 6,61,14,300 as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income. 11. Penalty proceedings under section

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

section 92C(2), after proposing the adjustment 5.1 The crux of the issue in these grounds is with regard to disallowance of payment of management fee. 5.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year

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

section 92C(2), after proposing the adjustment 5.1 The crux of the issue in these grounds is with regard to disallowance of payment of management fee. 5.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

disallowed the expenditure on the ground that the ALP was ‘Nil’ as no real services had been availed by the assessee and the arrangement was not genuine. On further appeal by the Assessee, the Tribunal held as follows:- “8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer’s determination of ALP of the services received under cost

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

disallowance made by the ld. AO was justified. 14. Before us the ld. AR submitted that that the provisions of section 40(a)(iii) of the Act has no application in the present case. It was submitted that for the section 2 to apply the payment made ought to be chargeable under the head salaries in terms of section

M/S FINE BLANKING PVT. LTD.,,HUBLI vs. JCIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowed and depreciation thereon which comes to Rs. 5,60,005/- is allowed. While calculating the depreciation allowed full depreciation is given for those Plant and Machinery which exceeded 180 days and 50% depreciation is given to the Plant and Machinery which is below 180 days. Accordingly the difference amount of Rs. 34,21,193/- (39,81,198 - Rs.5

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Disallowance of Rs. 14,17,500/- made by the Assessing Officer, being deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in respect of contributions made towards corporate social responsibility (“CSR”), as not being an allowable deduction. Software Development Services 7. Net mark-up on cost earned by the Assessee as computed by the TPO Operating

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is further bad in law as the computation

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is further bad in law as the computation

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is further bad in law as the computation

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is further bad in law as the computation