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

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

6) of the IT Rules and the search and\nseizure manual published by the department.\n7. The statement under Section 132(4) dated\n28.02.2020 taken from Nagendra Pai is invalid and\nwithout jurisdiction being fraught with material\ninfirmities, without application of mind, and\ncontrary to section 132(4) and board instructions\nand consequently the impugned additions of\nRs.20

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

6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently in as much as while they\nchose to disturb the voluntary disallowance of\nRs.4,79,802/- under Section 14A in the revised return,\nthey blindly taxed the non-existent income reflected in the\nvery same revised return.\n\n18.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate

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. 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

43,52,220 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 59,87,469 Disallowance of digital media expenses 10,12,47,072 Disallowance of TV advertisement expenses 26,16,12,490 Depreciation on goodwill 1,57,73,310 IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 70 2.2 The AO accordingly proposed to assess the income

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

6. It is also proposed to amend sub-section (1) of the said section, so as to include a non-obstante clause in respect of other provisions of the Income-tax Act and provide that no deduction shall be allowed in relation to exempt income, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act. 7. This amendment will take effect

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

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

6(2)(4) ITA No.1133/Bang/2024 10. On appeal before the CIT(A), assessee contested that all these payments have been made on a bank holiday and therefore disallowance of the same could not have been made as it is covered by provisions of exceptions provided under Rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept

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

6(7A), which mandates quantification of expenditure by DSIR, is a procedural mechanism and cannot override the substantive provision of section 35(2AB) of the Act. It was argued that section 35(2AB) itself does not restrict the weighted deduction only to the amount quantified by DSIR, unlike section 35(2B) of the Act, where the Act specifically uses

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

6(7A), which mandates quantification of expenditure by DSIR, is a procedural mechanism and cannot override the substantive provision of section 35(2AB) of the Act. It was argued that section 35(2AB) itself does not restrict the weighted deduction only to the amount quantified by DSIR, unlike section 35(2B) of the Act, where the Act specifically uses

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

6(7A), which mandates quantification of expenditure by DSIR, is a procedural mechanism and cannot override the substantive provision of section 35(2AB) of the Act. It was argued that section 35(2AB) itself does not restrict the weighted deduction only to the amount quantified by DSIR, unlike section 35(2B) of the Act, where the Act specifically uses

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

6 of 14 account of different working capital condition that exist between the comparable companies and the Appellant. 1.17 Risk adjustment 1.17.1 The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO / TPO have erred in not appreciating that the Appellant operates at less than normal risks as compared to comparable companies, which carry higher risks and accordingly erred in not granting appropriate risk

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

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

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

6, 7\nITA No. 1056/Bang/2023\n2015-16\n2\nITA No. 1057/Bang/2023\n2016-17\n2\nITA No. 1058/Bang/2023\n2017-18\n2\nITA No. 1059/Bang/2023\n2018-19\n2\nITA No. 1060/Bang/2023\n2020-21\n2\n9. The Ld.AR submitted as under:\n9.1 The assessee is a State Level Federal Agriculture and Rural\nDevelopment Credit Society registered under the provision of the\nKarnataka

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

43,780/- 2022-23 25/1071848317(1) Disallowance of dated 03.01.2025 expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) Ground Nos.3 and 4: 113,08,73,213/- Disallowance of interest on reserve fund Revenue’s Appeal 6