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

disallowance is upheld under section 40(a)(i), then the sum of Rs. 262,02,26,125 has to be allowed as deduction for the AY 2014-15 as the TDS has been paid during the previous year 2013-14 Allowability of deduction u/s 35(2AB) Wipro Ltd v CIT 382 ITR 179 (Karnataka

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

249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

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.

Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n8. 6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently in as much as while they\nchose to disturb the voluntary disallowance of\nRs.9,16,249

SHRI. BOREGOWDA RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

disallowed this explanation and made an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-admission due to non-compliance with deficiency letters, citing Section 249

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

249 and 224 of the paper- book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

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

disallowed. Contentions before the ITAT: 3.6 There is no splitting up or reconstruction of business. The following factual aspects demonstrate the independence of SEZ Unit S11: 3.7 Physical location: The EOU unit 1 was situated at 20th KM, Hosur Road whereas the SEZ unit — S 11 is situated at Biocon SEZ, Bommasandra - Jigani Link Road, Bangalore. These two units

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Disallowance of TDS credit - Grounds 24 to 24.2 42. The ld. AR submitted that in the return of income, the Assessee had claimed TDS credit of Rs. 13,08,86,668/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessee claimed additional credit of Rs. 24,37,979/- pursuant to additional certificates being received post filing of the return

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Disallowance of TDS credit - Grounds 24 to 24.2 42. The ld. AR submitted that in the return of income, the Assessee had claimed TDS credit of Rs. 13,08,86,668/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessee claimed additional credit of Rs. 24,37,979/- pursuant to additional certificates being received post filing of the return

HEDDUR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed the claim under section 80AC of the Act and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B. 12.1 It is not in dispute that the assessee filed the return of income only after the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and that the return was filed belatedly. The explanation for such delay, as submitted

DCIT, HASSAN vs. M/S SUJATHA NARAYAN & ASSOCIATES, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance. For these reasons and that the grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal by the Hon'ble ITAT, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention

M/S. SUJATHA NARAYANAN & ASSOCIATES,HASSAN vs. ACIT, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance. For these reasons and that the grounds of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal by the Hon'ble ITAT, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act is not a permissible adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant is a credit co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Society Act, 1997 and is engaged in the business

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowing the claim made u/s 11 of the Act and u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act:- APMC Tarikere, Tarikere Page 6 of 9 APMC Tarikere, Tarikere Page 7 of 9 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed for filing of belated return of income. . Page 5 of 9 10. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality found that the reason stated by the assessee for delay in filing of is not substantiated by the documentary evidence. The explanation of the assessee is nothing but a bald assertion without any basis and the same

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A.” Also as per CBDT Notification No 3/2022, dated 16.07.22, filing of Form 68 is mandatorily

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A.” Also as per CBDT Notification No 3/2022, dated 16.07.22, filing of Form 68 is mandatorily