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

disallowance of expenditure incurred on subscription charges amounting to Rs. 3,18,52,696 and Rs. 1,08,79,768 under section

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

disallowance of expenditure incurred on subscription charges amounting to Rs. 3,18,52,696 and Rs. 1,08,79,768 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)(iii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n18. 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

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 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n\n18. 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

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

79,91,000/- were not certified by the DSIR\nand eventually, this claim was disallowed by the learned Assessing\nOfficer under Section

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section. However, the assessee is providing facility management services to industry verticals. Hence the AO disallowed the claim deduction of Rs. 6,79

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section. However, the assessee is providing facility management services to industry verticals. Hence the AO disallowed the claim deduction of Rs. 6,79

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant under section\n80G of the Act, amounting to Rs.57,79,500/-.\n4.\nThe

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

79 and the decision of this tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Millipore (India) Ltd in IT(TP)A No 327/Bang/2015 reported in 80 taxmann.com 12 as well as various other case laws. 18.3 The assessee further submitted that a continuing debit balance does not constitute an international transaction under section 92B(1) of the Act, as it is merely

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

disallowed the excess weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) amounting to ₹62,79,78,889/-, being the difference between

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

disallowed the excess weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) amounting to ₹62,79,78,889/-, being the difference between

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

disallowed the excess weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) amounting to ₹62,79,78,889/-, being the difference between

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

79,072 wherein disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was made to the extent of exempt income of Rs.1,55,54,382. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), identical grounds were raised and disallowance was confirmed. 26. The brief facts show that the ld. AO as per para 3.1 has given a show cause notice to the assessee that

MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

79,072 wherein disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was made to the extent of exempt income of Rs.1,55,54,382. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), identical grounds were raised and disallowance was confirmed. 26. The brief facts show that the ld. AO as per para 3.1 has given a show cause notice to the assessee that

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

79,072 wherein disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was made to the extent of exempt income of Rs.1,55,54,382. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), identical grounds were raised and disallowance was confirmed. 26. The brief facts show that the ld. AO as per para 3.1 has given a show cause notice to the assessee that

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

79,072 wherein disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was made to the extent of exempt income of Rs.1,55,54,382. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), identical grounds were raised and disallowance was confirmed. 26. The brief facts show that the ld. AO as per para 3.1 has given a show cause notice to the assessee that

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

79,072 wherein disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was made to the extent of exempt income of Rs.1,55,54,382. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), identical grounds were raised and disallowance was confirmed. 26. The brief facts show that the ld. AO as per para 3.1 has given a show cause notice to the assessee that

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

79 the purpose of assessment, income includes loss, but I am at this stage concerned with the interpretation of the phraseology used in sub-section (3) of section 255 of the Act, and not with the dispute as to whether for the purpose of assessment total income would include loss. That it will, is beyond dispute but the question