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

80A(5) of the Act to deny the fresh claim to allow deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest income and gain on forward contracts, aggregating to Rs. 17,28,02,37,983. 2.4. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the appellant is entitled for the claim of deduction under section 10AA

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

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

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

PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA LIMITED,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Prathamika Krishi Pattina, Ito, Vs. Sahakara Sangha Ltd., Ward – 2, Belur Road, Salagame, Hassan – 573 201. Hassan – 573 201. Pan : Aabap 8799 B Appellant Respondent

disallow deduction under section 80P of the Act for not filing of return of income by invoking provisions of section 80A(5

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

disallowance of Rs. 5,84,930/- as per provision of section 80A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5.5 The appellant

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

80A would clearly signify that such a\ndeduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as\nspecified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act.\n106. Thus, it has been urged by the assessee by way of the additional ground that the ld.\nCIT(A), Mumbai erred in allowing the deduction in respect

M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier section 80-I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas section 80-I(1) deals with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee and therefore while interpreting section 80-I(1), which also refers

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

section 10AA of the Act. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Ground nos. 41 & 42 - Reduction of deduction under section 10AA in respect of pure onsite revenue 16.1 It was submitted that a software development project typically goes through the stages of requirement analysis, prototyping, design, pilots, programming, testing and installation and maintenance. A software

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

5 to 9 in the above list were also 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

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

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

AMASEBAIL VYVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

disallow deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify and/or to alter any of the foregoing grounds and also urge such other grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Act, though assessee has not filed the return

M/S. SHRI MAHISHASURAMARDINI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

5) of section 80A would operate by itself. In cases where returns have been filed, the question of exemptions or deductions referable to section 80P would definitely have to be considered and granted if eligible. 20. Here, questions would arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

sections for the purpose of deductions under Chapter VI-A. 15. We therefore hold the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act has to be allowed as per Sec.80IA(1) of the Act, but the deduction so arrived at cannot exceed the gross total income of the Assessee. 16. In the present case, the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, considering

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

sections for the purpose of deductions under Chapter VI-A. 15. We therefore hold the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act has to be allowed as per Sec.80IA(1) of the Act, but the deduction so arrived at cannot exceed the gross total income of the Assessee. 16. In the present case, the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, considering

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

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. In this case, the assessee has not filed return of income with the prescribed time allowed under section 139(1), 139(4) or within the 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

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. In this case, the assessee has not filed return of income with the prescribed time allowed under section 139(1), 139(4) or within the time

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

sections 80A(5) and 80AC, it emerges that to make a claim u/s 801A, the assessee is simply required to file the return of income u/s 139(1) and the claim can be made in the Page 8 of 19 revised return of income also i.e. there is no bar for making the claim even in the return of income