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

202,90,08,182/-, as a capital expenditure eligible for 25 percent depreciation amounting to Rs. 146,31,38,211/- and erred in making a net disallowance of Rs. 438,94,14,633/-. The assessee contended that the software expense should be held as revenue expenditure and without prejudice, depreciation should be allowed on the disallowance made for earlier years

NADATHUR ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

202/- is required to be disallowed, As appellant has already disallowed PMS related expenses of Rs.8,66,341/- the disallowance u/s.14A rw R8D would be an amount of Rs.1,17,03,861/- AO is directed to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A rw Rule 8D to this amount. These grounds are partly allowed.” 19. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

M/S. NSL SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

disallowance of expenditure pertaining to harvesting transportation charges of Rs.72,07,202/- by holding that ITA Nos.597, 598 & 772(B)/2019 10 TDS under section

SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA was dropped and the deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 10AA was granted. 2.7 Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are general in nature and therefore do not require adjudication. 4. Ground Nos. 3.1 and 3.2: - Ld.AR submitted

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowable u/s. 143(1) of the Act. There was also several judicial precedents relied upon. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) categorically held that for the impugned Assessment Order, provisions of section 80AC are applicable and as the Assessee has not filed its return of income in time and further no application u/s. 119(2)(b) has been made for condonation

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

disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. At the outset, it is to mention that on the same set of facts an identical issue has been dealt by the ITAT, IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 51 of 202

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

disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. At the outset, it is to mention that on the same set of facts an identical issue has been dealt by the ITAT, IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 51 of 202

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

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

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

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

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

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

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

M/S NADATHUR ESTATES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita Nos.3247 & 3248(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2009-10) M/S Nadathur Estates Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.23, 3Rd Floor, Nadathur Palace, 8H Main Rod, Jayanagar, 3Rd Block, Bangalore-560 011 Panno.Aabcn0228P Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bangalore Respondent

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs.1,03,90,272/-, (1,25,70,202 – 21,79,930). 2.2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred

SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

disallowance under section 40A(2)(a) of the Act— market rate of interest at the rate of 24 per cent held to be reasonable]. (4) Hynoup Food & Oil Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Assn. CIT [1994] 48 lTD 202

CIBERSITES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Jason P.Boaz, Am

section 40(a)(i)of the Act. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing payments of INR 2,842,202

ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.38/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

Disallowance under section 14 A read with Rule 8D: Rs.2,082/- 10. Aggrieved by the Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT (A) 11. The Ld.CIT(A) considered objections raised by assessee in considered objections raised by assessee in considered objections raised by assessee in respect of the comparables that was sought

M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Disallowance under Section 14A : Rs.1,93,730. (ii) Addition under Section 41(1) : Rs.38,07,116. (iii) Income from Shantiniketan Project : Rs.29,55,92,202

DCIT vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Disallowance under Section 14A : Rs.1,93,730. (ii) Addition under Section 41(1) : Rs.38,07,116. (iii) Income from Shantiniketan Project : Rs.29,55,92,202

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

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

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") [Ground Nos. 13 to 17]. We had also submitted that Ground Nos. 18 to 20 are consequential and further that additional Ground No. 21 relating to applicable rate of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") will have to covered by decision of Special Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143[3] r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/09/2021 by making certain additions and disallowances to the income returned by the Petitioner / Appellant and thereby assessed the total business income of the Petitioner / Appellant at Rs. 202

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 143[3] r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/09/2021 by making certain additions and disallowances to the income returned by the Petitioner / Appellant and thereby assessed the total business income of the Petitioner / Appellant at Rs. 202