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

68,58,216/- (-) 11,22,48,924/-) was disallowed.\n10.4.1\nThe ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the other hand is of the opinion\nthat the assessee is within its legitimate right to credit interest on\ncash basis as per section 43D

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nPage 39 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nassessee as a contractual obligation

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\nassessee as a contractual obligation to the State Government, bit\nhas to be treated

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43D govern only income chargeable\nunder section 28, viz., income chargeable under the head profits\nand gains from business or profession.\n\n18.9 The Ld.AR thus argued that the provisions of section 43B\nare not applicable to the guarantee commission paid by the\n\nPage 39 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n\nassessee

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

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

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

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