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 of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act at Rs.445,35,11,127/-. 28. Facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed a deduction under section

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and, therefore. the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and, therefore. the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and, therefore. the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and, therefore. the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and, therefore. the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and, therefore. the proviso to section 28(v) is not applicable

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n18. 1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the\naccounts\n==End of OCR for page 27== ==Page 28

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

disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n18.1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the\nclaim of the assessee and without examining the accounts\nof the appellant and without rejecting its books of account.\nPage 28

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.

disallowance under Section 14A\nr/w Rule 8D(2)(iii):\n18. 1. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the\naccounts\nof the appellant and without rejecting its books of account.\nPage 28

M/S. TATA ELXSI LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , BENGALURU

disallowed the deduction\nu/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in\nfavour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the\nassessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is\ncovered.\n107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 28 or 37(1).\n\n15.7.\nThe impugned addition is bad being based on the\nLearned AO's perverse and wrong narrative in para 7.4\nand 7.5 of what transpired during search proceedings.\n\n15.8.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making such\nad-hoc disallowance

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

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

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

28 of 34 10AA with respect to Hyderabad SEZ unit 04 & Hyderabad SEZ unit 06 was allowed. 18.2 The DR was unable to controvert the findings of the ITAT and CIT(A) for the earlier years. The disallowance of deduction under section

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance under section 28 (iv) of ₹ 48,845,724/–, disallowance u/s. 37 of ₹ 150,000, the disallowance for non-deduction

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

section 40A(3) of the Act. Hence, disallowance does not arise. The breakup the disallowance is given below ITA Nos.1199, 1200/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 28

SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

28(iv) of the Act. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is brought to our notice that the CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance made by the AO by relying on his decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 and that

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.

28 of 34\n\n10AA with respect to Hyderabad SEZ unit 04 & Hyderabad SEZ unit 06 was\nallowed.\n\n18.2 The DR was unable to controvert the findings of the ITAT and\nCIT(A) for the earlier years. The disallowance of deduction under section

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

disallowing Rs.4,25,00,000/-\nclaimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and Rs.14,30,000/- as cost of\nimprovement.\n2.1 On verification and examination of the assessment record, the\nfollowing were noticed:\n• That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under\ncapital gain on account of compulsory acquisition of\nproperty situated at Bommanahalli, Bengaluru under the\nRight

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed under section 40(a)/(i)/(ia) while filing the return of income and therefore for non deduction of TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied