M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

2)(iii) when the Appellant had voluntarily disallowed the expenses of Rs.5,16,249/- which was directly attributable and Rs.4,00,000/- which was indirectly attributable to portfolio management services. 8.3. The Lower Authorities were not justified in making any disallowance under Section

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

2)(iii) when the Appellant had voluntarily disallowed the expenses of Rs.5,16,249/- which was directly attributable and Rs.4,00,000/- which was indirectly attributable to portfolio management services. 8.3. The Lower Authorities were not justified in making any disallowance under Section

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

2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription 14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallow some claim, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Once the assessee had requested the AO to treat the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act as the return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, then the AO ought to have issued

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallow some claim, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Once the assessee had requested the AO to treat the return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act as the return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, then the AO ought

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallow some claim, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Once the assessee had requested the AO to treat the return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act as the return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, then the AO ought

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

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 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

2) (2.1 to 2.7) 7. The assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.19,00,000 in the previous year relevant to the impugned AY 2012-13. The assessee claimed the same as exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T.Act. The AO in the impugned assessment order has made disallowance of Rs.1,31,50,663 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. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member It(Tp)A No.2235(Bang)/2016 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S The Himalaya Drug Company, Makali, Tumkur Road, Bangalore-562 162 Pan No.Aadft3025B Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Ms Neera Malhotra, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2019 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

disallowed sum of Rs.3,12,25,891/-in respect of interest. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld.TPO, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/07/13 and assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with 144C of the Act. 3.1 Subsequently, Ld.AO issued notice under section 148 dated 12/12/13, which was received by assessee

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 286CC, 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. (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of one month from

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

MICROFINISH VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance of Rs. 4.97.738/- out interest expenditure. considered as part of cost of New Project being set up by the Appellant Company even when interest of Rs. 85,753/- was already allocated by the Appellant itself. 5. Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming addition of Rs. 7.263/- made by AO based on reconciliation difference between books and report

MICROFINISH VALVES PVT LTD,HUBLI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

section 2(22)(e) is to tax dividend in the hands of shareholder. The deeming provisions as it applies to the case of loans or advances by a company to a concern in which it’s shareholder has substantial interest, is based on the presumption that the loan or advances would ultimately be made available to the shareholders

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

2)(a)(i) of the Act for ₹5,23,803/- only. 5. As the assessee had not filed the return of income within the prescribed time limit under section 139(1) of the Act, the AO, in accordance with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, proposed to disallow the claim of deduction under section