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

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), 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

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA: 3.1. The learned NAC and the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the following incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the said incomes are not derived from the activity of software development and export. i) Interest on non-convertible debentures (NCDs

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

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

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

disallowance of\nRs.7,32,05,792/- towards the expenditure made u/s 35 (2AB) of the\nAct.\n7.1\nThe ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessee being engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacture and sale of professional-grade electronic\nequipment incurred in-house scientific research expenditure eligible\nfor deduction under Section_35{2AB) of the Act. Given this, it had\nclaimed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA:\n\n3. 1. The learned NAC and the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the following\nincomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction\nunder section 10AA for the reason that the said incomes are not derived from\nthe activity of software development and export.\ni)\nInterest on non-convertible

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year\nGround Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1053/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\nPage 14 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nAppeal No.\n Assessment Year Ground Number\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013-14\n3, 6, 7\nITA No. 1055/Bang/2023

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowed\nunder section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been\nchallenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in\nfollowing grounds:\n\nPage 14 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n\nAppeal No.\n\n Assessment Year\n\nGround Number\n\nITA No. 1052/Bang/2023\n2012-13\n2, 5, 6\n\nITA No. 1054/Bang/2023\n2013

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 the weighted deduction claimed and the actual expenditure incurred (₹1,88

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 the weighted deduction claimed and the actual expenditure incurred (₹1,88

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 the weighted deduction claimed and the actual expenditure incurred (₹1,88