Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab v. DCIT

61 SOT 61Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#18204 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab v. DCIT

M/S CENTUM RAKON INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1964/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 1964/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Rakon India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of #12, Khb Industrial Area, Income Tax, Yelahanka New Town, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 106. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcc2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit Respondent By : (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/07/2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Bangalore-2 For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Determining The Alp Of International Transaction At Rs. 32,77,99,833 /- 3. Comparables: 3.1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Choosing M/S. Valiant Communication Ltd As A Comparable Entity Ignoring The Fact That M/S. Valiant Communication

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: (DR)

…the comparable companies. The question therefore is as to whether the profits to be compared should be ignoring the depreciation charge/expenditure. An identical issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab v. DCIT, 61 SOT 61 GIRO) (Bang) wherein this Tribunal took the view following decision in the case of 24/7 Customer.com (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 12013] 140 ITD 344/[2012] taxmann.com 258 (Bang.), held that if there are differences in the method of charging depreciation between the Tested party and the comparable companies, then there would be impact on the operating prof…

M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD ,DODDABALLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2494/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) by

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2494/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2013-14 M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- No.23 & 24, tax, Circle-1, LTU, KIADB Industrial Area, Veerapura, Bangalore. Doddaballapur-561 203. PAN – AAACB 7927 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S Ramasubramanyam, C.A Respondent : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) by Date of hearing : 25.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Th…

M/S SNECMA HAL AEROSPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 432/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.432/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 M/s Snecma HAL Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer, No.140/1, Hoody Whitefield, Ward-6(1)(3), Bangalore-560 066. Bangalore. PAN – AAJCS 4358 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Revenue by : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT Date of hearing : 21.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challengi…

M/S I2 TECHNOLGOIES SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)IV, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1208/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazit(Tp)A No.1208/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Jda Software Private Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, (‘Erstwhile I2 Technologies India Range 11, Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Tower A, Mantri Commercio, Near Sakra World Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru-560103. Pan : Aaaci7334Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr-I Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 92C

…7. Dy. CIT V. Petro Araldite (P) Ltd., [2013] 145 ITD 182/35 taxmann.com 590 (Mum. – Trib.) 8. Ariston Thermo India Ltd., V. Dy. CIT [2014] 147 ITD 388 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 501 (Pune – Trib.) 9. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CJT [2014] 61 SOT 61 (RO)/[2013] 35 taxmann.com 144 (Bang. – Trib.) 10.Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P.) Ltd V. Asstt. CIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 293 (Bang.). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning of the learned CIT(A). Hence, these grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 21. Ground no.5 challenges the directions of the learned CI…

DCIT vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1298/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S Jayaramanrevenue’S Appeal

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Singh, CA & Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi, JCIT

Section 10ASection 260A