Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT

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

…he decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. reported in (2011) 203 Taxman 477. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 as distinguished decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. In our opinion, as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was not available to the revenue authorities in the interest of justice, we remand these issues Page 32 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 back to the Ld.AO/TPO to verify these claims in accordance with the principles laid down by Hon’ble S…

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab The Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pvt. Ltd., Spl. Range – 3, Survey No.96 & 97, Boganahalli Village and Bengaluru. Survey No.72/2 & 72/5, Doddakanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Vs. Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560 103. PAN – AAACH 4151 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR) Date of Hearing : 19.08.2022…

Soumya Ghosh, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Soumya Ghosh, C-1103, The Assistant Windmills Of Your Commissioner Of Mind, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 3(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Affpg0104B Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax Nfac, Delhi, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Is So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 Soumya Ghosh, C-1103, The Assistant Windmills Of Your Commissioner of Mind, Income Tax, EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 3(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Vs. Bangalore. PAN: AFFPG0104B APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee by Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue by Baseganni, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 19-10-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee again…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…relied on by the Revenue has been specifically overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis 21 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. CIT & Anr. reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC). It was contended by the learned AR that since the DTAA between India and Ireland overrides the definition under the Income-tax Act, the phrase “similar property” being absent in the definition of “royalty” as provided under the DTAA, the entire reasoning and discussion in the impugned order of the A.O. and the CIT(A) to the extent of analys…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

…relied on by the Revenue has been specifically overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis 21 IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 & Ors. M/s.Google India Private Limited. Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. CIT & Anr. reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC). It was contended by the learned AR that since the DTAA between India and Ireland overrides the definition under the Income-tax Act, the phrase “similar property” being absent in the definition of “royalty” as provided under the DTAA, the entire reasoning and discussion in the impugned order of the A.O. and the CIT(A) to the extent of analys…