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

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income at Rs.359,40,66,200/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted the reply. From the documents, it was noticed that the assessee company is engaged in the business of export of software

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

80A would clearly signify that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act." 106. Thus, it has been urged by the assessee by way of the additional ground that the ld. CIT(A), Mumbai erred in allowing the deduction in respect

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

disallowed the deduction\nu/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in\nfavour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the\nassessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is\ncovered.\n107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA: 2.1. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru ('AO') and the CIT(A) have erred in not allowing the following incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the said claim had been raised for the first time

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2)(d) of the Act as it was not earned from deposit or investment with another cooperative societies. 6. Besides above the AO found that section 80A(5) of the Act provides that the no deduction under section 80P of the Act shall be allowed in case where the assessee fails to claim the same in the return of income

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2)(d) of the Act as it was not earned from deposit or investment with another cooperative societies. 6. Besides above the AO found that section 80A(5) of the Act provides that the no deduction under section 80P of the Act shall be allowed in case where the assessee fails to claim the same in the return of income

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowed by the learned CIT(A) by holding that the assessee has not claimed deduction under section 10AA of the Act on these items in the return of income. Therefore in pursuance to the provision section 80A(5) of the Act, no deduction under section 10AA of the Act, be allowed in absence of claim made in the return

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance of expenses etc. as required under provisions of sections 40A, 80-IA, 10AA, 80A, sections where reference is made to section 80-IA, or to transactions as may be prescribed by the Board, if aggregate amount of all such domestic transactions exceeds Rupees 5 crore in a year. It is further proposed to amend the meaning of related persons

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance of expenses etc. as required under provisions of sections 40A, 80-IA, 10AA, 80A, sections where reference is made to section 80-IA, or to transactions as may be prescribed by the Board, if aggregate amount of all such domestic transactions exceeds Rupees 5 crore in a year. It is further proposed to amend the meaning of related persons

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

80A(4) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) opined that no further deduction under Section 80JJAA could be allowed for units whose profits were already claimed as exempt under Sections 10A or 10AA of the Act. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim for these units. 8.5 The ld. CIT(A) further disallowed the deduction under Section 80JJAA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

80A(4) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) opined that no further deduction under Section 80JJAA could be allowed for units whose profits were already claimed as exempt under Sections 10A or 10AA of the Act. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim for these units. 8.5 The ld. CIT(A) further disallowed the deduction under Section 80JJAA

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA of the Act for interest income earned by the Appellant. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case by - passing the impugned Order without following the judicial Precedence on this matter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, ADARAKATTI,LAKSHMESHWAR TALUK GADAG DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

2)(d) in its income and expenditure account, however, the appellant did not file its return of income before the due date u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act, the deduction claimed by the appellant is not allowable. The relevant portion of section 80A(5) is reproduced as under

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P of the Act by virtue of provision contained in Sec. 80AC of the Act was left out to be pleaded in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority due to oversight. The belated filing of ITR will not disentitle the appellant from claiming the benefit u/s. 80P of the Act as held

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80A; IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 33 of 110 (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter

KALIA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,BELHANGADY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowed on the ground that the claim for deduction had not been made in a valid return filed by the appellant in terms of the IT Act. It was the stand of the Assessing Officer that in view of the provisions of section 80A(5) of the IT Act, the claim for deduction could not be considered. Page

SHRI. DUNICHAND KHITRI RAJA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Dunichand Khitri Raja, The Assistant Commissioner Of #304, 16Th Cross, Sadashivnagar, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 080. Vs. Cpc, Pan : Addpr 6538 G Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ankit, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023

2. Grounds relating claim of deduction under section 80-IA 2.1. The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 243,586/-under section 80-IA of the Act on the grounds that audit report in.Form lOCCB was not filed within the date prescribed under section 139(1). 2.2. The learned

SRITHERUMALLESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowing the cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO did not ask further details. If he had any doubt, he should have issued notice further. The CIT(Appeals) has relied on the order in ITA No.329/Bang/2023 dated 14.8.2023 and confirmed the addition. He further submitted that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) should also be given to the assessee