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 DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing an amount of Rs. 17,562,147 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for short-deduction of taxes. b) The Hon'ble DRP and Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is attracted in cases of non-deduction of taxes or for non-payment of taxes after deduction within

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

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

89,24,197 Page 8 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 Disallowance of claim of deduction 6 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) in the 52,58,75,221 computation of income: Disallowance of lease rental paid on 7 6,27,45,952 account of computers Disallowance of other provisions u s 37 8 7,39,69, 500 of the Income

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

89,24,197 Page 8 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 Disallowance of claim of deduction 6 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) in the 52,58,75,221 computation of income: Disallowance of lease rental paid on 7 6,27,45,952 account of computers Disallowance of other provisions u s 37 8 7,39,69, 500 of the Income

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

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

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

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

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

89,252/-. The assessee after claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act declared taxable income of Rs. 10,72,28,150/- only. 14. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed

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

89,252/-. The assessee after claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act declared taxable income of Rs. 10,72,28,150/- only. 14. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

disallowance in\nmanner provided by sub-section (2) and (3) of Sec.14A”. Hence,\nwe earnestly submit that this Judgement is not at all relevant to\nus.\n12. Judgement of the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench of the ITAT\nin the case of CIT Vs SG Investments and Industries Ltd\n(2011) 89

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

89,967/- iv. Transport Subsidy - Rs.22,20,000/- 5. The AO observed that on the above payments, assessee was required to deduct TDS on such payments as per Chapter XVII but assessee did not deduct TDS. Therefore, on such payments, the AO as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallowed

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

89,967/- iv. Transport Subsidy - Rs.22,20,000/- 5. The AO observed that on the above payments, assessee was required to deduct TDS on such payments as per Chapter XVII but assessee did not deduct TDS. Therefore, on such payments, the AO as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

89,415/- since the interest initially undercharged under Section\n234B(3). The appellant challenged this rectification order, Out the\nCIT(A) discussed the appeal through an order (bearing DIN No.\nITBA/APL/M/250/2022-23/1043503503(1) dated 21.6.2022.\nSubsequently the appellant approached the ITAT against the\ndecision. The ITAT in its order dated 30.08.2022 in ITA No.\n558/Bang/2022 remanded the matter back