Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT

382 ITR 179High Court2016#856 most cited

What is Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is allowable even if no tax is paid in India on the corresponding income due to deductions under sections 10A or 10AA, or losses in other units. The scope of income eligible for deduction under Section 10AA includes interest on deposits and realized gains on forward contracts.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT · 382 ITR 179 · 62 Taxmann.com 26 · Foreign Tax Credit · FTC · Section 90 · Section 91 · DTAA · Section 10A · Section 10AA · non-taxable income · deduction eligibility

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 26

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91Section 10ASection 234BSection 10AASection 115JBSection 244A

Issues it is cited on

free trade zonestpi unitsection 80ia(8)foreign tax creditsection 28(i)section 90(1)section 10aasection 91section 10acomputer softwaresection 80hhsection 80h

Judgments citing Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT

Infosys Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 532/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…extending the benefit of exemption of payment of tax under Section 10A of the Act to a newly established undertaking in a free trade zone. 30.3.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. DCIT in its order reported in (2016) 382 ITR 179 before whom the substantial question of law No.16 for consideration was in respect of income from sale of scrap, export incentive, rent received, interest income and gain on exchange rate fluctuation. The Hon'ble Court held that these items were eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. At para 166 thereof; the Hon'ble Court followed i…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 509/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…extending the benefit of exemption of payment of tax under Section 10A of the Act to a newly established undertaking in a free trade zone. 30.3.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. DCIT in its order reported in (2016) 382 ITR 179 before whom the substantial question of law No.16 for consideration was in respect of income from sale of scrap, export incentive, rent received, interest income and gain on exchange rate fluctuation. The Hon'ble Court held that these items were eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. At para 166 thereof; the Hon'ble Court followed i…

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 449/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 10ASection 40

…extending the benefit of exemption of payment of tax under Section 10A of the Act to a newly established undertaking in a free trade zone. 30.3.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. DCIT in its order reported in (2016) 382 ITR 179 before whom the substantial question of law No.16 for consideration was in respect of income from sale of scrap, export incentive, rent received, interest income and gain on exchange rate fluctuation. The Hon'ble Court held that these items were eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. At para 166 thereof; the Hon'ble Court followed i…

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…AO has erred in not allowing relief under section 91 in respect of state tax paid outside India totally amounting to Rs.141,01,15,640 Page 11 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 as per the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd v CIT [2016] 382 ITR 179. Interest on IT Refund granted under section 143(1) but subsequently recovered on completion of assessment proceedings is allowable as deduction 58. The learned AO has erred in not allowing deduction for interest on IT refund amounting to Rs.1,16,28,374 which was granted in the intimation passed under section 143(1) dated 04.02.2009 for AY 2007-0…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S Infosys Ltd

ITA/356/2018HC Karnataka22 Nov 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 10ASection 260Section 90

…- 1 - ITA No. 356 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2018 BETWEEN : 1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-11, PRESENT ADDRESS ACIT, C-3(1)(1) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A) vs. M/S Infosys Ltd

ITA/348/2018HC Karnataka22 Nov 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 90

…- 1 - ITA No. 348 of 2018 A/W ITA No. 349 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2018 A/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2018 IN ITA No.348 OF 2018 BETWEEN : 1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANAGALA BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-11 PRESENT ADDRESS ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -11, Pune vs. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, (Formerly Igate Global Solutions Ltd.), Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1935/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

…1) in respect of such taxes paid in Japan. On the other foreign tax credit not allowed by the AO on the ground of income of 10AA units not suffering any tax in India, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Kar) to hold that such credit was admissible. This is how, both the sides stands. 22. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The AO computed the amount of foreign tax credit available to the assessee as under: Table No.1: (in Rs.) Total claim by the assessee as per the 13,05,33,028/- submission made…

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1857/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 10ASection 115JSection 391Section 72ASection 74

…1) in respect of such taxes paid in Japan. On the other foreign tax credit not allowed by the AO on the ground of income of 10AA units not suffering any tax in India, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Wipro Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Kar) to hold that such credit was admissible. This is how, both the sides stands. 22. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The AO computed the amount of foreign tax credit available to the assessee as under: Table No.1: (in Rs.) Total claim by the assessee as per the 13,05,33,028/- submission made…

M/S Subex Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of

Appeal is allowed

ITA/42/2017HC Karnataka26 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260

…, Bombay Vs., Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State10 wherein it is held as follows: "The conclusions recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal must be held to be 9 (2016) 382 ITR 179 Para 106 10 (1966) 17 STC 576 SC I.T.A No.42/2017 16 based on no evidence. In our judgment, no answer should have been recorded by the High Court on the question framed, for the question whether in r…

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

…IT(TP)A Nos.2898/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.2387/Bang/2019 M/s. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2898/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.2387/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited 81 & 82, EPIP Area, Whitefield JCIT Special Range-7 Vs. Bangalore 560 066. Bengaluru PAN NO : AABCT8915B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing :…

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

…IT(TP)A Nos.2898/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.2387/Bang/2019 M/s. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2898/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.2387/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited 81 & 82, EPIP Area, Whitefield JCIT Special Range-7 Vs. Bangalore 560 066. Bengaluru PAN NO : AABCT8915B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing :…

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…d considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue was also involved for the Assessment Year 2004-05 as well as for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case reported in 382 ITR 179 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 has upheld the decision of this Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We further note that this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08 has again decided this issue in para 7.4 as under : “7.4 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & M/s. Tata Consultancy Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Services Limited Income Tax LTU-1 9th Floor, Nirmal Building 29th Floor, Centre One Nariman Point, World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 PAN/GIR No. AAACR4849R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services of Income Tax LTU-1 Limited 29th Floor, Centre One 9th Floor, Nirmal Building World Trade Centre Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

…No. 17/Mum./2011 ITA no.1650/Mum./2016 ITA no.1054/Mum./2016 under section 10A/10AA of the India. In support of the additional ground of objection, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in Wipro Limited v/s DCIT, [2016] 382 ITR 179. The DRP vide directions dated 16.11.2015 refused to render any directions on the additional ground of objection on the basis that the issue doesn‟t relate to the variation of the income and further is not emanating from the draft assessment order. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 58. During the course of hearing, the learned…

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

…was payable in India. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 41. At the time of hearing, it was agreed that the issue with regard to claiming FTC is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd., 382 ITR 179 (Karn.). “The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has given following reason for allowing Foreign Tax credit in the case of Wipro Ltd (supra):- "56. Therefore, it follows that the income under Section 10A is chargeable to tax under Section 4 and is includible in the total income under Section 5, but no tax is charged because of the exemption given unde…

M/S. Jeans Knit Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of No.21-E1, 2nd Phase, Income-tax, Industrial Area, Peenya, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru-560 058. Bengaluru. PAN – AABCJ 4513 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 09.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against t…

Principal Commissioner of vs. M/S Tata Elxsi Ltd

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA/336/2019HC Karnataka22 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH I.T.A.No.336/2019 BETWEEN : 1 . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX-7, BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 2 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) AND : M/s TATA ELXSI LTD., ITBP ROAD, HOODY, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560048 PAN: AAACT7872Q …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYAN…

Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, National Faceless Assesment Center, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 468/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[Assessment Year: 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 244A

…proceedings, the assessee filed additional objections before the DRP claiming the entire amount of Rs. 3,96,12,848/- withheld by Canon Inc. Japan as tax credit. This claim was made in view of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision in the case of Wipro Ltd 382 ITR 179. However, the DRP did not adjudicate upon this additional addition. 9. Subsequent to DRP’s directions, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order which was rectified on 22.07.2021, which is under appeal. In the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the only reason for not allowing foreign tax credit is pendency of the is…

M/S Infosys Bpm Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 493/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…before Ld CIT(A). We notice that the assessee has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd ITA Nos.492, 493, 1151 & 1157/Bang/2018 M/s. Infosys BPM Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 22 (2016)(382 ITR 179) in support of its claim. However, the Ld CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee with the following observations:- “10.4 However, it is important to note that issue of benefit under Section 10A which is parimateria to Section 10AA of the Act was recently decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) and the S…

M/S Infosys Bpm Lmited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 492/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…before Ld CIT(A). We notice that the assessee has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd ITA Nos.492, 493, 1151 & 1157/Bang/2018 M/s. Infosys BPM Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 22 (2016)(382 ITR 179) in support of its claim. However, the Ld CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee with the following observations:- “10.4 However, it is important to note that issue of benefit under Section 10A which is parimateria to Section 10AA of the Act was recently decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) and the S…