GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 2010-11 7 & 8 2011-12 7 & 8 4 Disallowance under section 14A in Book Profit 2012-13 6 & 7 2013-14 6 & 7 Amortization of Upfront Fees 5 and legal Fees paid as revenue 2010-11 9 expenditure 2010-11 5 4 6 Interest under section 234B

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. Copy of the said letter is enclosed as Annexure – 2. The appellant also submitted that material on the basis of which disallowance was proposed under Sec.40A(3) / Sec.40(a)(ia) relating to payments towards transportation charges exceeding the limits specified u/s. 40A(3), was not incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings and consequently

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. Copy of the said letter is enclosed as Annexure – 2. The appellant also submitted that material on the basis of which disallowance was proposed under Sec.40A(3) / Sec.40(a)(ia) relating to payments towards transportation charges exceeding the limits specified u/s. 40A(3), was not incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings and consequently

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. Copy of the said letter is enclosed as Annexure – 2. The appellant also submitted that material on the basis of which disallowance was proposed under Sec.40A(3) / Sec.40(a)(ia) relating to payments towards transportation charges exceeding the limits specified u/s. 40A(3), was not incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings and consequently

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 234B and 60 Consequential 234D Additional grounds of appeal filed on Additional 28.6.2021 on deduction for education Not pressed ground cess 6. Ground nos. 2 – 5 – It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessing officer has denied the claim of Rs.2227,82,65,630/- in respect of four SEZ units being 1) Chennai – Unit 1 2) Chandigarh 3

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

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

3. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in restricting the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to Rs.4,00,793 instead of deleting the entire disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 14A read with rule

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 234D. 19. No opportunity has been given before levy of interest u/s 234A & u/s 234B of the I T Act. 20. Without prejudice to the appellant’s right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority, the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy of interest u/s 234A & u/s 234B of the Act. 21. The levy of interest u/s 234D

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

disallowance made under section 14A. 10.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore has erred in not allowing double taxation relief under section 90 amounting to Rs. 3,69,70,354/- which was claimed in the return of income. 10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore has erred in not allowing double taxation relief

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) should be deleted in entirety. Levy of interest under section 234B :- The learned CIT(A) has erred in 12. confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. On facts $nd circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B is not leviable

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) should be deleted in entirety. Levy of interest under section 234B :- The learned CIT(A) has erred in 12. confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. On facts $nd circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B is not leviable

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section