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

43D. Sections 30 to 36 confer specific deductions. Section 37 deals with expenditure which is general in nature and not covered within sections 30 to 36. The allowability of brand building expense would have to be examined under section 37 - the residuary section. To examine eligibility of brand building expenses under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,58,216/- (-) 11,22,48,924/-) was disallowed. 10.4.1 The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the other hand is of the opinion that the assessee is within its legitimate right to credit interest on cash basis as per section 43D

BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

68,977.23 respectively, there can be no disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act in view of the proviso to Sec.40(a)(i) which lays down that “where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or, has been deducted in the previous year but paid in any subsequent year after the expiry