M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

Section\n142(1) dated 02.07.2021 whereas on the contrary, the\nimpugned disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A(3)” in the said notice.\n15. 5. The Learned AO erred in perversely converting\nthe offer of Rs.17,92

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

Section\n142(1) dated 02.07.2021 whereas on the contrary, the\nimpugned disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A(3)” in the said notice.\n\n15. 5. The Learned AO erred in perversely converting\nthe offer of Rs.17,92

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

section 10AA and foreign tax credit in respect of foreign tax paid presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs. 218,16,32,251 including Rs. 52,10,92

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 foreign tax credit of Rs.218,16,32,251 including Rs.\n52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently\nunder dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO)) in respect of income on\nwhich deduction under section

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

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

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

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of Section

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

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 (Rs.) 1. 2013-14 (-) 19,59,61,563/- 9,13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total

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

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 (Rs.) 1. 2013-14 (-) 19,59,61,563/- 9,13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total

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

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 (Rs.) 1. 2013-14 (-) 19,59,61,563/- 9,13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total

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

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 (Rs.) 1. 2013-14 (-) 19,59,61,563/- 9,13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total

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

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 (Rs.) 1. 2013-14 (-) 19,59,61,563/- 9,13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total

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

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 (Rs.) 1. 2013-14 (-) 19,59,61,563/- 9,13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total

TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

disallowance is called for\nby invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\n2.15.\nWe rely on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case\nof Gurdas Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda\nHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana [2015] 63 taxmann.com

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

92 of the Act does not apply. The definition of international transaction requires an actual exchange of goods or services between associated enterprises, which a continuing debit balance does not satisfy. 20. However, the learned DRP after considering the facts in totality rejected the objection raised by the assessee. The learned DRP found that by explanation inserted to section

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

section 14A of the Act 61,00,440 Disallowance of digital media expenses 11,72,76,395 Disallowance of TV advertisement expenses 30,61,08,223 Disallowance of sponsorship expenses 92

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

section 14A of the Act 61,00,440 Disallowance of digital media expenses 11,72,76,395 Disallowance of TV advertisement expenses 30,61,08,223 Disallowance of sponsorship expenses 92