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

disallowed the commission paid to non residents amounting to Page 41 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 Rs.23,68,35,533/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 13.4. The Ld.AR at the outset filed a list showing break up of commission paid to non residents during the year was as under: Vendor

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 10 of 14 any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal in ITA No.1250/Bang/2016 and the assessee-company is in appeal in ITA No.1229/Bang/2016. 7. Now, we shall take up the revenue appeal. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1229

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal in ITA No.1250/Bang/2016 and the assessee-company is in appeal in ITA No.1229/Bang/2016. 7. Now, we shall take up the revenue appeal. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1229

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal in ITA No.1250/Bang/2016 and the assessee-company is in appeal in ITA No.1229/Bang/2016. 7. Now, we shall take up the revenue appeal. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1229

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal in ITA No.1250/Bang/2016 and the assessee-company is in appeal in ITA No.1229/Bang/2016. 7. Now, we shall take up the revenue appeal. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1229

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed and Appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunath

disallowed by the Assessing Officer after examination of the details when it was found that some of the branches in respect of which the assessee claimed deduction are located in the area which cannot be defined as rural in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lord Krishna

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

M/S ABB AB,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee appeals for A

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(I.T)A Nos.464/Bang/2018 & 2878/Bang/2019 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Abb Ab C/O Abb India Limited, 21St Floor, World Trade Centre, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (West), Bangalore-560 055 ….Appellant Pan Aafca9560R Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Addl. Cit (D.R) & Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel For Department.

1) and shall keep the declaration in his safe custody. (3) (i) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. (ii) Where tax has been deducted at source and paid to the Central Government and the income is assessable over a number

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of the Act, the income from the trust was considered, but\nthe corresponding TDS credit of Rs. 2,59,879/- was not allowed,\nresulting in a demand. She filed a rectification petition under section 154\nof the Act, but no relief was granted.\n13.3 It was further submitted that as per Rule 37BA read with section\n199

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

199 Building 52,37,048 Plant and machinery 86,92,88,750 7,83,12,033 7,30,74,985 1,00,40,833 1,24,956 1,24,956 Furniture and fixtures 22,97,400 Computers 1,91,48,265 22,97,400 52,53,801 10,88,77,342 10,36,23,540 Total 1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

disallowed additional depreciation solely relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Indian Hotels Co., Ltd V. ITO (2000) 112 Taxmann 46 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of Supreme Court was in the context of deductions under the provisions of section 80J/32A of the Act and has no relevance to the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

disallowed additional depreciation solely relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Indian Hotels Co., Ltd V. ITO (2000) 112 Taxmann 46 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of Supreme Court was in the context of deductions under the provisions of section 80J/32A of the Act and has no relevance to the provisions of section

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

199/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and made detailed written submissions. The CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, the disallowance towards foreign exchange loss for purchasing of fixed assets were disallowed by observing that the loss suffered by the assessee

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

199 of the Act to be applied to the assessee. Therefore, it requires further verification. ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 14 13. Considering the rival submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

199 of the Act to be applied to the assessee. Therefore, it requires further verification. ITA Nos.723 to 727/Bang/2025 482 to 486/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 14 13. Considering the rival submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee