NEOGENETICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

391 Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OC 26,79,48,011 9. The addition as above was made to the total income of the assessee in the final Assessment Order by the AO against which the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. We shall take up for consideration ground No.4 raised by the assessee as a preliminary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

68,000/- as mentioned in pages 1 and 2\nwere received from the head office of M/s Trishul Developers, Bangalore, by\ncash and paid to various persons as per their instructions. The head office\npeople use to tell me that the instructions were given by the MD. I do not know\nthe nature of these payments.”\n14.\nWhen confronted with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68,000/- as mentioned in pages 1 and 2\nwere received from the head office of M/s Trishul Developers, Bangalore, by\ncash and paid to various persons as per their instructions. The head office\npeople use to tell me that the instructions were given by the MD. I do not know\nthe nature of these payments.\"\n14.\nWhen confronted with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

68,466/- it had not deducted tax at source. Accordingly, same was disallowed under provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. Ld.AO noted that assessee set of loss of Rs.1,72,86,687/- from forward contract, its income from other sources, instead of business income. Ld.AO accordingly re-casted profit and loss account by making necessary adjustment

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

68,35,533. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, commission paid should be fully allowed as deduction. Page 5 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 Grounds on non reduction of communication expenses from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10AA 27. The learned assessing officer has erred in not reducing the communication expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR GUTUTIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010 – 11 Shri Satyendra Kumar Gutgutia, Block No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Acit Circle – 6 (3) (1), Oscar Orchard Apartment, Vs. Bangalore. Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru - 560092 Pan: Adrpg8676J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. Chattaraj, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019

391 Kotak Mahindra Rs.25,37,758/- page 392 ---- Oscar Udyog Ltd. Rs. 6,23,000/- page 393 ---- ICICI Bank Loan Rs. 2,97,630/- page 394 Page 395 to 396 Inter-company/inter branch balances Rs. 177,40,715/- Page 343 Florance Flora Farm (Debit balance)page- 397 Florance Flora (Credit balance) page-398 Florance Flora Farm (Debit balance)page

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds of appeal Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd., ‘Uthunga’, No.1, Pmk Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018. … Appellant Pan:Aabat 0269 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

391 ========== The assessee’s returned income is only 40,77,27,150/-. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction from certain funds viz., Common Good Fund Rs. 25,00,000 Special Assistance Fund Rs. 1,00,00,000 PACS/DCCB Fund Rs. 50,00,000 Rural Farmers Social Economic Dev.Fund Rs. 1,35,00,000 The assessee is not entitled to claim

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,381 promotion (AMP) Royalty 3,42,39,391 Total 231,39,79,272 3. On receipt of TPO’s order, the A.O. passed draft assessment on 16.04.2021. The A.O., apart from incorporating the TP adjustment suggested by TPO, also made the following corporate tax additions in the draft assessment order. Disallowance on account of Amount (in Rs.) Depreciation

M/S AKME HARMONY APARTMENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

391/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. M/s. AKME Harmony Apartment Owners Welfare Association, Bengaluru Page 3 of 12 The learned authorities below are not justified in law in 7. applying the maximum marginal rate as per the provisions of the Section 167B of the Act on the wrong premise that the shares of members are indeterminate

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68,510, out of provision of INR 6,41,61,438 created during Assessment Year 2009-10 and added to book profit for that year, should be excluded in book profit computation for Assessment Year 2010-11 in terms of clause (i) of Explanation I to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Corporate tax matters 18. Without prejudice

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68,510, out of provision of INR 6,41,61,438 created during Assessment Year 2009-10 and added to book profit for that year, should be excluded in book profit computation for Assessment Year 2010-11 in terms of clause (i) of Explanation I to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Corporate tax matters 18. Without prejudice

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68,510, out of provision of INR 6,41,61,438 created during Assessment Year 2009-10 and added to book profit for that year, should be excluded in book profit computation for Assessment Year 2010-11 in terms of clause (i) of Explanation I to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Corporate tax matters 18. Without prejudice

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68,510, out of provision of INR 6,41,61,438 created during Assessment Year 2009-10 and added to book profit for that year, should be excluded in book profit computation for Assessment Year 2010-11 in terms of clause (i) of Explanation I to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Corporate tax matters 18. Without prejudice

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

391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule but also enhancing the same to Rs 1,15,70,677/-. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that under the law for enhancing the income the appellant has to be provided with an opportunity

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

391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule but also enhancing the same to Rs 1,15,70,677/-. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that under the law for enhancing the income the appellant has to be provided with an opportunity

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

391/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule but also enhancing the same to Rs 1,15,70,677/-. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that under the law for enhancing the income the appellant has to be provided with an opportunity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA ELXSI. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

68,91,445/- not realized within prescribed time, the ld.CIT(A), referring to the provisions of section 155(11A) of the Act, held that the same should be considered as export turnover of the current year, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA ELXSI. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Tata Elxsi Ltd., Itpb Road, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. … Appellant Pan:Aaact 7872 Q Vs

68,91,445/- not realized within prescribed time, the ld.CIT(A), referring to the provisions of section 155(11A) of the Act, held that the same should be considered as export turnover of the current year, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro