M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

disallow the claim under section 80G of the Act, in respect of CSR contributions. 6.4 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law by disregarding the fact that the deductions claimed under section 80G of the Act pertained to eligible payments specified under section 80G of the Act. 6.5 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have

ANUGRAHA EDUCATION TRUST,SULLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 80G(5) if the institution is found to be misapplying receipts or violating conditions of approval. 2. Rejection of Donor's Claim: The Income Tax Department may disallow

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

2. The CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing authority to delete disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D (iii) of ignoring that conditions for invoking said section are fully satisfied in instant case and CIT(A) has also ignored the circular No.5/2014, dated 11 February 2014 which has clarified that Rule 8D of the Rules read with section

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head 'Income form Business and Profession'. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that

FIRST AMERICAN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years : 2016 – 17

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head ‘Income form Business and Profession’. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

2. It is ordered accordingly 67. Ground Nos. 22-26 is with regard to disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80G

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

disallowance of donation under section 80 G of the Act by holding it to be CSR expenses. 7. He submitted that out of total CSR expenses, sum amounting to Rs.16,80,000/- was eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act. It has been submitted that, donations made u/s 80G are eligible expenditure under section 80G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below ought to have held that the amount of Rs.2172.41 lakhs is not even income under the scheme of the Income tax Act and thus ought ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 8 of 42 not to have assessed the same on the facts

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below ought to have held that the amount of Rs.2172.41 lakhs is not even income under the scheme of the Income tax Act and thus ought ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 8 of 42 not to have assessed the same on the facts

M/S. FNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

disallowed the same. 5. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the provisions of Section 80G of the Act provides that the sums specified in sub-section (1) & (2

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the charitable activity of relief to the poor by forming Self Help Groups (SHG) of the rural poor and encouraging them to become financially self-sufficient. He submitted that the modus operandi followed by the assessee is to advance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

80G of the Act but if it could be termed as an expenditure of the category falling under section 37(1) of the Act, then the right of the assessee to claim the whole of it as allowance under section 37(1) of the Act cannot be denied but such money must be laid out wholly or exclusively

JSW INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of CSR expenditure under explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act applies only in the context of determining its income from business and does not preclude an assessee from claiming deduction under Chapter VIA (which includes section 80G

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2(i) and (ii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the donation and other expenses of Rs. 36,21,782.00 only. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust, duly recognized and registered under section 12A as well as section 80G

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2(i) and (ii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the donation and other expenses of Rs. 36,21,782.00 only. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust, duly recognized and registered under section 12A as well as section 80G

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section n of the Act, on the ground that the activities of the appellant are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the activities of the appellant fell under "relief to poor" and thus

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section n of the Act, on the ground that the activities of the appellant are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.744 & 745/Bang/2023 Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore Page 2 of 54 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate that

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

disallowance. 49. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. Further, he submitted that the amendment brought to section 37(1) by Finance Act 2014, inserting Explanation 2 was brought prospectively from 1.4.2015 and prior to 1.4.2015 the expenditure incurred towards CSR is allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The ld. AR in this