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 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) totally amounting to Rs.3,30,96,246/-, considering the average

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 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) totally amounting to Rs.3,30,96,246/-, considering the average

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

246 of the Act. The assessee is required to choose the right course of action diligently which depends upon different facts and circumstances. 25.5 Nevertheless, the object for making the adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act is to determine the income and tax liability

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering \"tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering \"tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering \"tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering "tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering "tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering "tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering "tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force."\n\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering "tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering \"tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force.\"\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power of the state

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance under section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year ? The court referred to the decision of this court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 22 of 38 Appellate Tribunal

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance under section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year ? The court referred to the decision of this court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 22 of 38 Appellate Tribunal

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance under section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year ? The court referred to the decision of this court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 22 of 38 Appellate Tribunal

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance under section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year ? The court referred to the decision of this court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 22 of 38 Appellate Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed under section 43B. 6.5 On the contrary the Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chowranghee sales Buro vs. CIT, reported in (1973) 87 ITR 542 6.6 We have perused submissions advanced for both sides in light of records placed before us. 6.7 Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay the service

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed under section 43B. 6.5 On the contrary the Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chowranghee sales Buro vs. CIT, reported in (1973) 87 ITR 542 6.6 We have perused submissions advanced for both sides in light of records placed before us. 6.7 Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay the service