EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

disallowance based on the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act read with section 170. The assessee also

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO/NFAC disallowed the\ndepreciation primarily on the ground that the said

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

32 of 85 housed in sections 28 to 44DB. Under section 28(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is chargeable to tax. As per section 29, the income referred to in section 28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections

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

32 of 85 housed in sections 28 to 44DB. Under section 28(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is chargeable to tax. As per section 29, the income referred to in section 28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections

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

32,15,180/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s. 145A\nof the Act – Rs. 18,70,77,582/-\nc) Labelling expenses – Rs. 26,14,691/-\nd) Disallowance u/s. 14A – Rs. 53,61,903/-\n6.\nInsofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\na) Disallowing

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)

32,15,180/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.18,70,77,582/-\nc) Labelling expenses – Rs.26,14,691/-\nd) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.53,61,903/-\n6.\nInsofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\na) Disallowing the quantum of purchases of tendu

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.

32,15,180/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.18,70,77,582/-\nc) Labelling expenses – Rs.26,14,691/-\nd) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.53,61,903/-\n6. Insofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\na) Disallowing the quantum of purchases of tendu

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

section 10AA and foreign tax credit in respect of foreign tax paid presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs. 218,16,32

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE PAYERS TAX UNIT, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of Rs.7,32,05,792/-\nexpenditure made under section 35(2AB) of the Act.\nxii.\nThe learned AO & CIT(A) has erred

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

32,15,180/-\n\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.18,70,77,582/-\n\nc) Labelling expenses – Rs.26,14,691/-\n\nd) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.53,61,903/-\n\n6.\nInsofar as the assessment year 2020-21 is concerned, the AO made\nthe additions under the following heads.\n\na) Disallowing

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 of foreign tax credit of Rs.218,16,32,251 including Rs.\n52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently\nunder dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO)) in respect of income on\nwhich deduction under section

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

Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act and also sought to explain the rationale behind its insertion. In particular, the Court would like to refer to para 9 of the said order which reads as under: “On a conceptual note, primary justification for such a disallowance is that such a denial of deduction is to compensate for the loss

BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

disallowed.\nc. Section 32 is falling in between section 30 to .38 of the\nIncome-tax Act.\nd. In case

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

32,64,406 the Act Total Income assessed as per assessment order 40,53,084 u/s 147 1.4. The appellant aggrieved by the above addition and disallowance preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the course of the appeal proceedings the appellant submitted all the relevant details to substantiate the genuineness of the expense. However

M/S. I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32 of the Act. V. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the matter is duly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bengaluru I TAT in the Appellant's own case for the assessment year 2015-2016 in ITA No. 3415/Bang/2018. VI. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that

M/S. I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32 of the Act. V. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the matter is duly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bengaluru I TAT in the Appellant's own case for the assessment year 2015-2016 in ITA No. 3415/Bang/2018. VI. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that