TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that data automation expenses are revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions and allowing the deduction. It also held that the ESOP expenses were wrongly disallowed due to a misinterpretation of invoice dates and should be allowed as a deduction.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a software development company, claimed deductions for data automation expenses and employee stock option plan (ESOP) expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, treating data automation as capital expenditure and ESOP expenses due to alleged lack of invoices. The CIT(Appeals) allowed data automation expenses but upheld the disallowance of ESOP expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether data automation expenses are revenue or capital in nature, and whether ESOP expenses are allowable as a deduction when invoices were allegedly not properly accounted for.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80JJAA,Section 92CA,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144C,Section 40(a)(i),Section 234B,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT622 citing124 ITR 1 · 1980 · SC
- ICDS Ltd. v. CIT280 citing350 ITR 527 · 2013 · SC
- Amway India Enterprises v. DCIT127 citing111 ITD 112 · 2008 · ITAT
- CIT v. Calcutta Export Company93 citing255 Taxmann 293 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Arawali Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.43 citing259 ITR 30 · 2003 · HC
- CIT v. Texas Instruments (India) P. Ltd.19 citing127 Taxmann.com 59 · 2021 · HC
- Bosch Ltd. v. ACIT, LTU, Banglore10 citing74 Taxmann.com 161 · 2016 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN & MS. PADMAVATHY S
Per Bench These are cross appeals against the order of the CIT(Appeals), LTU, Bangalore dated 31.01.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated in 1985 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas Instruments Incorporated, USA ["TI Inc"]. The assessee has an undertaking registered under the Software Techn
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 80JJAA
- Vaishnavi Enterprises, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8…ITA 3464/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Schwarz Sperren Intelligence and Security… vs Income Tax Officer, Kautilya BhavanITA 7072/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021
- Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 8(2), KolkataITA 1958/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 8(2), KolkataITA 1957/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2015-2016
- 3 Generations, Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-49(1), DelhiITA 2741/DEL/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026