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 made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA Nos.645

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

43 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\nbe\nraised before the\nTribunal at any time of the\nappellate\nproceedings,\nprovided no fresh facts are\nto be looked into Further we\nfind force in the contention\nof the learned DR in his\nwritten submissions that\nwithout seeing the copy of\napproval under section\n153D, it is not justifiable to\ncomment

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

5) of the Act. On\n29/10/2020.\nWas\nprocessed u/s.143(1) of the\n\nPage 34 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nact.\n\nAssesse cited case deals\nwith condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2)(b) of\nthe Income

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

5. The learned CITA) Mumbai erred in allowing the deduction in respect of export\nprofits of SEZ unit u/s 10AA of the Act with reference to the income computed under\nthe head 'profits and gains of business or profession' of the SEZ unit instead of 'gross\nprofits and gains' of SEZ unit, as interpreted by Supreme Court in the recent

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

43 - Deduction under section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA

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

43 - Deduction under section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction of ₹54,61,28,031 claimed by the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act. 19. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that its total bank balance as on 31-03-2021 was ₹ 160,88,73,365, which includes fixed deposits . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction of ₹54,61,28,031 claimed by the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act. 19. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that its total bank balance as on 31-03-2021 was ₹ 160,88,73,365, which includes fixed deposits . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowances were made in the assessment order resulting in an assessed Infosys Limited Page 3 of 20 total income of Rs. 11407,97,47,950/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 17.01.2017 against the said order. The CIT(A)/NFAC passed an order on 21.12.2017, partly allowing the appeal. Again aggrieved

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

43,25,322 Commission and Director remuneration paid to Mr. 70,41,443 Vijay Mallya Payments to UBHL 15,20,63,311 Reimbursement of expat salary 3,62,34,473 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital media expenses 17,95,97,760 Disallowance of TV advertisement

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

43,25,322 Commission and Director remuneration paid to Mr. 70,41,443 Vijay Mallya Payments to UBHL 15,20,63,311 Reimbursement of expat salary 3,62,34,473 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital media expenses 17,95,97,760 Disallowance of TV advertisement

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 201(1)/(1A) having regards to the scheme of the Act and various decisions by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as various decisions of coordinate bench. We have reproduced the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in the preceding paragraphs. And the same stands upheld based on the discussions herein above. 12. We therefore, are of the view

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5 of 14 have erred in law and on facts in rejecting the following comparable companies requested for inclusion by the Appellant during the course of TP assessment proceedings: (i) Informed Technologies India Limited (ii) R Systems International Limited (Segmental) (iii) Jindal Intellicom Limited (iv) Microland Limited (v) Ace BPO Services Private Limited (vi) Crystal Voxx Limited (vii) Microgenetic Systems

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

5,15,843 Reimbursement of expat salary 43,52,220 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 59,87,469 Disallowance

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 4 to 13 of its appeal pertains to the action of the learned DRP/TPO/AO in benchmarking the payment of royalty at NIL. 6. The facts in brief

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

5 of the BR Act, 1949, it would not be a co-\noperative bank. Then the definitions under the NABARD\nAct, 1981 would not apply. If a co-operative society is not a\nco-operative bank, then such an entity would be entitled to\ndeduction but on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank\nwithin the meaning

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

5 of the BR Act, 1949, it would not be a co-\noperative bank. Then the definitions under the NABARD\nAct, 1981 would not apply. If a co-operative society is not a\nco-operative bank, then such an entity would be entitled to\ndeduction but on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank\nwithin the meaning

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

5,99,055-1,30,000) on total investments is unjustified. B. Disallowance of Foreign exchange loss of Rs. 48,23,924/- under Section 43A of the Act. Grounds as per Form 36 III. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 48,23,924. IV. The learned CIT(A) has failed