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

14A as per rule 8D in the absence of satisfaction of the Ld.AO on incorrectness of the claim made by the assessee. 8.5. Without prejudice, Special bench of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415, among other cases has held that only those investments

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

14A as per rule 8D in the absence of satisfaction of the Ld.AO on incorrectness of the claim made by the assessee. 8.5. Without prejudice, Special bench of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415, among other cases has held that only those investments

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,441 3,94,57,472 23,25,00,199 additional depreciation 5.5 It was also contended that assuming without admitting that additional depreciation is to be disallowed, the increase in business profits of EOU and SEZ units as a result of disallowance of additional depreciation is eligible for deduction under section 10B and 10AA. 5.6 The said submissions

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14a OF The Act is as under :- [Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income66. 67 14A. 68

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14a OF The Act is as under :- [Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income66. 67 14A. 68

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14a OF The Act is as under :- [Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income66. 67 14A. 68

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14a OF The Act is as under :- [Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income66. 67 14A. 68

MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14a OF The Act is as under :- [Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income66. 67 14A. 68

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

14A and section 94(7) of the Act operate in different fields and in our opinion, will have no bearing on the present case. 20. We are of the view that in the light of the discussion in the earlier part of this order, the question of disallowance to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU 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

14A of the Act in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act on the basis that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code by itself and the importing of such disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 9. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A of the Act in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act on the basis that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code by itself and the importing of such disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 10. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A of the Act in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act on the basis that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code by itself and the importing of such disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 10. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

14A of the IT Act and 2nd issue is disallowance of Rs.28,03,850/- under section 37 of the Act and the 3rd is disallowance of Rs.90,00,000/- under section 37 of the Act. 19. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are already been adjudicated by us in the foregoing appeals and both the grounds have been restored

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

14A of the IT Act and 2nd issue is disallowance of Rs.28,03,850/- under section 37 of the Act and the 3rd is disallowance of Rs.90,00,000/- under section 37 of the Act. 19. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are already been adjudicated by us in the foregoing appeals and both the grounds have been restored

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

14A of the IT Act and 2nd issue is disallowance of Rs.28,03,850/- under section 37 of the Act and the 3rd is disallowance of Rs.90,00,000/- under section 37 of the Act. 19. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are already been adjudicated by us in the foregoing appeals and both the grounds have been restored

DCIT vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS COMPANY LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

Section 14A of the 2 ITA No.404(B)/13 & C.O.No.89(B)/13 Income-tax Act, 1961.( in short ‘The Act’). As per the revenue, a disallowance u/s 14A could be made only by resorting to Rule-8D and not otherwise. 2. As against this, assessee in its cross objection, is objecting to the disallowance made

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

68,14,32,706 which is under dispute before the Australian Tax Authorities. As per section 155(14A) read

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

14A of the Act. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the first substantial question of law framed by this court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. Learned counsel for parties, have fairly admitted that in case this court frames a substantial question of law that whether provisions of Section