JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.91,59,391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.91,59,391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.91,59,391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule

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

391 ITR 218 held that only expenditure incurred to earn exempt income should be disallowed and expenditure incurred to protect, preserve, IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 85 maintain and utilize the tax free investment should not be disallowed under section

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

391 ITR 218 held that only expenditure incurred to earn exempt income should be disallowed and expenditure incurred to protect, preserve, IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 85 maintain and utilize the tax free investment should not be disallowed under section

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

391 ITR 274, inter alia, considered the followed question of law for adjudication. (IV) Whether losses of other 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of 10A Units before deductions under Section 10A are effected? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision held as under - “15. Sub-section 4 of Section

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

391 ITR 274 wherein it has been held as under: “That from a reading of the relevant provisions of section 10A it is more than clear that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia). At the outset Ld.AR concedes that, the issue stands squarely covered against assessee by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Palam Gas Services vs CIT reported in (2017) 394 ITR 300, Accordingly we allow these grounds raised by revenue. 7.Ground No.4-5 is in respect of direction to reduce telecommunication charges from

M/S SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of deduction under section 10 AA of the Act. 6.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO excluded communication expenses, travel insurance, professional charged, software expenses, expenses at the branch office and other expenses from export turnover without appreciating that assessee had already reduced Rs.1,59,19,069/- from the export turnover while computing the deduction which is attributable

TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

disallowance under section 14A of the Act could be made if no exempt income was earned by the assessee. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:- “9. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under Section143(3) of the Act, vide order dt.31.12.2010 wherein the assessee's income under normal computation was determined at Rs.336,64,93,391 in view of various additions / disallowances

INDUS VALLEY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KABRA EXCELCIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE,

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made for that year. Such an interpretation is not in line with the intention of the Legislature. To illustrate, if during a previous year, an assessee incurs an expense of Rs. 1 lakh to earn non- exempt income of Rs. 1.5 lakh and also incurs an expense

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 143(1)(a) in disallowing Rs. 2,95,391 being the employees’ contribution to the Employees Provident Fund when

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,391,721,213 contending that income has accrued to the appellant during the current financial year and hence, should be assessed to tax during the current year. 3.2 The learned DRP has erred in upholding the action of the learned AO by placing reliance on its directions for AY 10-11. Accrual of income

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,391,721,213 contending that income has accrued to the appellant during the current financial year and hence, should be assessed to tax during the current year. 3.2 The learned DRP has erred in upholding the action of the learned AO by placing reliance on its directions for AY 10-11. Accrual of income

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement was made, the benefit of claim u/s 10AA from the old SEZ cannot be allowed. 5. The CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to assessing officer on issue relating to section 80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

391 ITR 274 (SC). 9. Ground No.7 is regarding disallowance of provision for litigation of Rs.32,00,000 under normal provisions of the Act as well as upward adjustment to net profit while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the provision is created at Rs.32 lakhs as provision for litigation on the legal