BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). In support of this contention, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT-Delhi Bench. The case of ACIT Vs.Vireet Investments (P) Ltd., (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415. 4.5.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said amount pertained to income such as interest on investments and interest from loans advanced to employees and nominal members, which was not attributable to the activity of providing credit facilities to its members. 8.1 The learned CIT(A) observed that deduction under section 80P(2

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 can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co- operative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription 14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co- operative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest income earned from deposit or investment of surplus fund by the cooperative societies carrying the business of banking or providing credit facilities to the members. The arguments of the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facility to the members are that the surplus

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

2)(iii), the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the ITA Nos.1275 & 1323/Bang/2014 M/s.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., Page 4 of 25 AO. Copies of the orders of the Tribunal for both the assessment years are also filed before us. The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Having regard to the rival

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

55,691/- on account of premium on forward-cover, cannot be upheld. The said disallowance is accordingly directed to be deleted.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us. 12.3 It is submitted that identical issue is decided by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

55,691/- on account of premium on forward-cover, cannot be upheld. The said disallowance is accordingly directed to be deleted.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us. 12.3 It is submitted that identical issue is decided by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

55,691/- on account of premium on forward-cover, cannot be upheld. The said disallowance is accordingly directed to be deleted.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us. 12.3 It is submitted that identical issue is decided by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year