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

disallowance of Rs.12,38,740/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 31.10.2017. ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 6

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

disallowance of Rs.12,38,740/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 31.10.2017. ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 6

M/S 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

disallowance of Rs.12,38,740/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 31.10.2017. ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 6

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

section 14A read with Rule 8D which is a mandatory requirement under the statute under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice to the above the appellant contends that the disallowance made by the ld. Authorities below is highly excessive and the same requires to be reduced substantially under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6

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

6% No satisfaction recorded by the AO Infosys BPM Ltd v DCIT – ITA No 493/B/2018 decision dated 23.8.2021 ITAT Bangalore deleted the 14A disallowance in the absence of Disallowance under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE vs. M/S MUURUGARAJENDRA OIL INDUSTRY PVT LTD , CHITRADURGA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194C(6), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section

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 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n4. 6

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

6 which commenced the operations during the year was disallowed. 18.1 The CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the disallowance in respect of the 4 SEZ units viz., Chennai SEZ Unit 1, Chandigarh SEZ unit, Mangalore SEZ Unit 1 and Pune SEZ unit 1, for the reason that the ITAT in assessee’s own case has allowed deduction under section

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

6. Ground No.2 - Disallowance of Subscription charges paid to Forrester Research Inc., USA. 6.1 This ground is raised by the assessee in respect of the disallowance under Section

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

disallowing software expenses of Rs. 1,45,000 under section 40(a)(ia) for not making TDS under section 194J. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, 6

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

disallowing software expenses of Rs. 1,45,000 under section 40(a)(ia) for not making TDS under section 194J. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, 6

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

section 153A is bad\nand non-est and without prejudice, issue of notice under\nsection 143(2) is contingent on a valid return but the same\ndoes not validate an invalid return.\nPage 6 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n8. As regards disallowance

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

disallowance under Section 43B,by erroneously holding that by not showing these amounts in the turnover, the assessee has claimed expenditure whereas no such expenses has been claimed. 5. Grounds relating to addition towards withholding tax 5.1 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of the withholding taxes deducted by foreign

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

6. Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities, we find that disallowances are not calculated correctly as per Rule 8D. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to calculate the disallowances under section

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

6. Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities, we find that disallowances are not calculated correctly as per Rule 8D. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to calculate the disallowances under section

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

6. Having carefully examined the order of the lower authorities, we find that disallowances are not calculated correctly as per Rule 8D. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to calculate the disallowances under section

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.

Section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n4. 6

SOUTH INDIA FREIGHT CARRIERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Years : 2015-16

section 194C(6), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted in its entirety. 4.0 Grounds relating to levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C 4.1 The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C amounting to Rs. 6