INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to the AO's failure to record satisfaction. Brand building expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure. Foreign tax credit related to Section 10AA income was allowed. The issue of deduction for foreign taxes not eligible for relief under Section 90/91 was remanded.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "10AA

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

4,38,55,450 expenditure 8 Disallowance of demonstration equipment 63,16,692 written off 9 Disallowance of provision for spare parts 40,30,72,850 10 Disallowance of defective spare inventory 5,47,92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

4,38,55,450 expenditure 8 Disallowance of demonstration equipment 63,16,692 written off 9 Disallowance of provision for spare parts 40,30,72,850 10 Disallowance of defective spare inventory 5,47,92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

4. The CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.6,60,93,403 holding that there is no finding by the A.O. that the borrowed funds were diverted towards interest free loans without appreciating that the assessee had not offered any explanation regarding the purpose for which such advances/loans were advanced to the relatives of the Directors

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

4 of CO and Ground No. 2 of Department's\nappeal : Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.\n\n13.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the interest income from\ninvestments in various co-operative societies and banks are entitled\nfor deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The details of the interest

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

4 of 13 failed to adjudicate on the assessee’s contention that the enhanced profits should be subjected to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3.4 The below provisions were disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

4 of 13 failed to adjudicate on the assessee’s contention that the enhanced profits should be subjected to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3.4 The below provisions were disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4 of CO and Ground No. 2 of Department’s appeal : Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the interest income from investments in various co-operative societies and banks are entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The details of the interest

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

sections 115, 44AC, etc. (iii) The reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. ( supra) is misplaced since that case concerns allowance of losses on re-statement of existing currency assets and liabilities. In the case on hand, it relates only to future sales transactions without certainty of valuation

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

disallowed (Rs.) 1 2010-2011 1,07,76,926 2 2011-2012 1,39,45,150 3 2012-2013 1,13,85,507 4 2013-2014 1,27,25,738 5 2014-2015 1,67,41,590 6 2015-2016 1,67,42,956 7 2016-2017 4,55,00,000* Total 14,75,27,867 * As on the date

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances made by ld. AO is not correct as these are supported by the bills and vouchers. According to ld. CIT(A) this is afterthought and the assessee has been contradicting the statements of its employees, key persons and CMD recorded on oath without supporting evidences. As rightly pointed out by the assessee, Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, enable

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances made by ld. AO is not correct as these are supported by the bills and vouchers. According to ld. CIT(A) this is afterthought and the assessee has been contradicting the statements of its employees, key persons and CMD recorded on oath without supporting evidences. As rightly pointed out by the assessee, Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, enable