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

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income’. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression ‘in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.’ The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

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

57 Not Pressed paid outside India Interest on IT Refund granted under section 143(1) but subsequently 58 & 59 AO to verify and allow as per law. recovered on completion of assessment proceedings is allowable as deduction Interest levied under section 234B and 60 Consequential 234D Additional grounds of appeal filed on Additional 28.6.2021 on deduction for education Not pressed

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)

section\n14A, read with rule\n8D-Commissioner (Appeals)\nrestricted disallowance to\nRs.13.46 lakhs which was\nsustained by Tribunal - On\nappeal to High Court it was\nfound that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly taken\ninto account investments\nother than investments\nmade to earn exempt\nincome\nCommissioner\n(Appeals) had correctly\napplied formula prescribed\nunder rule 8D(2)(iii) -\nWhether thus, no\nsubstantial

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

section\n14A, read with rule\n8D-Commissioner (Appeals)\nrestricted disallowance to\nRs. 13.46 lakhs which was\nsustained by Tribunal - On\nappeal to High Court it was\nfound that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly taken\ninto account investments\nother than investments\nmade to earn exempt\nincome\nCommissioner\n(Appeals) had correctly\napplied formula prescribed\nunder rule 8D(2)(iii)\nWhether thus

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Section 14A of the Act can never exceed the exempted income earned by the Assesee during the particular assessment year and further, without recording the satisfaction by the Assessing Authority that the apportionment of such disallowable expenditure made by the Assessee with respect to the exempted income is not acceptable for reasons to be assigned the Assessing Authority, he cannot

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

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 should be allowed

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

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 should be allowed

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

section 37 of the Act state that, unless the expenditure is capital or personal in nature, which is prohibited by law for the purpose which are an offence, can be allowed. The AO has not established any of the above parameters laid down by the Act but yet choose to disallow the appellant’s claim. 4.5 The material available

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

section 37 of the Act state that, unless the expenditure is capital or personal in nature, which is prohibited by law for the purpose which are an offence, can be allowed. The AO has not established any of the above parameters laid down by the Act but yet choose to disallow the appellant’s claim. 4.5 The material available

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

section 37 of the Act state that, unless the expenditure is capital or personal in nature, which is prohibited by law for the purpose which are an offence, can be allowed. The AO has not established any of the above parameters laid down by the Act but yet choose to disallow the appellant’s claim. 4.5 The material available

MR.M.J ARAVIND,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

Section 57 as a deduction from the total income is fully justifiable and learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing

MR. M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri M.J. Aravind, Nirvana, 329, 18Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Ideal Homes Layout, Phase I, Vs. Ward – 2 (3) (1), Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 098. Pan: Acbpa0889J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

Disallowance under section 23,41,242 14A Net amount claimable under 27,31,232 section 57 Claim restricted to amount

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

Disallowance of deduction under section 57(111) of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

Disallowance of deduction under section 57(111) of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR POWER CORPORATION LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

Disallowance of deduction under section 57(111) of the Act 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

57,570. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently takenup for scrutiny. In view of the international transactions reported by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made a reference under Section 92CA of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination

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

section\n14A, read with rule\n8D-Commissioner (Appeals)\nrestricted disallowance to\nRs.13.46 lakhs which was\nsustained by Tribunal - On\nappeal to High Court it was\nfound that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly taken\ninto account investments\nother than investments\nmade to earn exempt\nincome - Commissioner\n(Appeals) had correctly\napplied formula prescribed\nunder rule 8D(2)(iii) -\nWhether thus, no\nsubstantial

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

section 35 or 35CCC or 35CCD\nExcess additional deduction claim u/s 35(2AB) now disallowed (B) – (C)\n--Rs.905,26,36,861/-\n– Rs.900,38,32,861/-(A)\n– Rs.1350,57