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

8D(2)(iii), included the investments made in Infosys BPO Ltd., that did not yield any exempt income for year under consideration. Going by the submissions of the Ld.AR, ratio laid down in Vireet Investment(supra), the disallowance then computed would be less that the disallowance voluntarily offered to tax by the assessee which is not the right course

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

House, Road No 78, Jubilee\nHills,\nHyderabad - 500033.\nPAN : AAECM 6049 G\nAPPELLANT\nWard -3(2)(3),\nBangalore.\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by : Shri. Ramesh Babu, CA\nRevenue by : Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.\nDate of hearing : 07.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement: 11=.09.2025\nORDER\nPer Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :\nBoth these appeals are filed by the assessee against

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

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

House, Road No 78, Jubilee\nHills,\nHyderabad - 500033.\nPAN : AAECM 6049 G\nAPPELLANT\nVs.\nITO,\nWard -3(2)(3),\nBangalore.\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by\n: Shri. Ramesh Babu, CA\nRevenue by\n: Shri. Swaroop Manava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.\nDate of hearing\n: 07.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement:\n11=.09.2025\nORDER\nPer Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :\nBoth these appealsare filed

M/S KEMWELL PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

House, 11, Tumkur Road, tax, Bengaluru-560 022. Circle-11(5), PAN – AAACK 5854 F Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Harish V.S, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7.1.1, BANGALORE vs. TALLY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

House rent and maintenance charges to its Director as discussed in preceding paragraph for the properties located at Kolkata and Mumbai. The grievance of the Revenue is that perusal of the return of income of the Directors would show that . Page 7 of 11 they were not having any property in Kolkata & Mumbai. When the Bench put a query

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

House [1986] 157 ITR 86 were under the Income Tax Act and the observations made and the test indicated therein were in the context of the wide definition of the word plant given in that Act and, therefore, not of universal application. Obviously, if plant is defined differently under a different provision or if the context so requires

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

House [1986] 157 ITR 86 were under the Income Tax Act and the observations made and the test indicated therein were in the context of the wide definition of the word plant given in that Act and, therefore, not of universal application. Obviously, if plant is defined differently under a different provision or if the context so requires

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. PAN: AAACK6734C Vs. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Sridhar, CA : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 09/12/2021

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing projects. It also undertake maintenance of project developed by them. For a year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 27/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 16,63,25,758/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee, in response to which representative

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing projects. It also undertake maintenance of project developed by them. For a year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 27/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 16,63,25,758/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee, in response to which representative

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing projects. It also undertake maintenance of project developed by them. For a year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 27/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 16,63,25,758/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee, in response to which representative

M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

8D: Taxpayer has not furnished any new evidence before AO. Hence, AO comments in the order hold correct and objection may be rejected. As discussed above, taxpayer objection may not be accepted. However, decision may be taken based on merit of the case." 5.2 In the light of the comments in the Remand Report, the matter was reexamined

M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

8D: Taxpayer has not furnished any new evidence before AO. Hence, AO comments in the order hold correct and objection may be rejected. As discussed above, taxpayer objection may not be accepted. However, decision may be taken based on merit of the case." 5.2 In the light of the comments in the Remand Report, the matter was reexamined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

8D: Taxpayer has not furnished any new evidence before AO. Hence, AO comments in the order hold correct and objection may be rejected. As discussed above, taxpayer objection may not be accepted. However, decision may be taken based on merit of the case." 5.2 In the light of the comments in the Remand Report, the matter was reexamined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

8D: Taxpayer has not furnished any new evidence before AO. Hence, AO comments in the order hold correct and objection may be rejected. As discussed above, taxpayer objection may not be accepted. However, decision may be taken based on merit of the case." 5.2 In the light of the comments in the Remand Report, the matter was reexamined

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house. The clauses relating to maintenance and repair also were similar to the terms of the agreement involved in the case before us. 19. The Bombay High Court held that, having regard to the agreement, which limited its period of operation only for 15 years, and the amounts spent by the assessee being towards the welfare of the workmen

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house. The clauses relating to maintenance and repair also were similar to the terms of the agreement involved in the case before us. 19. The Bombay High Court held that, having regard to the agreement, which limited its period of operation only for 15 years, and the amounts spent by the assessee being towards the welfare of the workmen