BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D to the file of the AO for consideration afresh; by keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 22

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

section 40A(2) and made a disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.16.41 Crores. 22. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) deleted

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

section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 is beneficial in nature and hence retrospective. 21. In any case and without prejudice, the disallowance, if any, is to be limited to the amount of software expenses payable as on 31st March 2012 and no disallowance is to be made in respect of payments actually made

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

22,131; comprising 50% of salary of employee plus 5% of salary of Senior Vice President. The Assessing Officer, however, computed the disallowance under Section

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 40 for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments. The AO noted that the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs 4,67,690/- as software expenses on which no tax was deducted at source. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, he disallowed

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 40 for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments. The AO noted that the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs 4,67,690/- as software expenses on which no tax was deducted at source. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, he disallowed

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

disallowable expenditure under Section 14A made by the Assessee or his claim that no expenditure was incurred is validly rejected by the Assessing Authority by recording reasonable and cogent reasons conveyed to Assessee and after giving opportunity of hearing to the Assessee in this regard. 22

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 20.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,85,600/- out of the financial charges claimed, quantifying notionally at 12% on interest free advances made to M/s.Azure Media Services (P) Ltd a subsidiary of the appellant. 21. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 20.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,85,600/- out of the financial charges claimed, quantifying notionally at 12% on interest free advances made to M/s.Azure Media Services (P) Ltd a subsidiary of the appellant. 21. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 20.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,85,600/- out of the financial charges claimed, quantifying notionally at 12% on interest free advances made to M/s.Azure Media Services (P) Ltd a subsidiary of the appellant. 21. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 2(22)(e) of the Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 18 Act. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) , wherein it was held as follows:- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.A.Builders Vs. CIT" (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) in the context of expenditure

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

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.

section 10(35) of the act. Assessee however had not disallowed any amount as expenditure attributable to the earning of exempt income. Ld.AO accordingly computed disallowance under Rule 8D(ii)(iii) amounting to Rs.2,02,22

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

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

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

22 of 34 and accordingly we inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 16. The Ground No 1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 16.1 The Ground No 2 deals with disallowance under section

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 20.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. There is no dispute that the services rendered by the non-resident commission agents outside India was to procure new business and to strengthen existing business of the assessee from overseas clients. CBDT Circular No.23 dt.23.7.1969

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

22 income, then if sub-section (3) of section 14A was not available, the Assessing Officer might not be able to make a disallowance