“computer software”

Chapter III - Incomes Not IncludedSection 10BSection 10B Explanation 2 / Section 80HHF951 judgments

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

deduction of profits and gains as are derived by 100% export oriented undertakings from the export of articles or things or computer software for the period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce ... articles or things or computer software, as the case may be, shall be allowed from the total income of the assessee. On a plain reading of the provisions of section 10B of the Act, it is very clear that 8 Granules India Limited profit derived from the undertaking should

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BENGALURU vs. ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the Cross Objection is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 250

revenue from\nsoftware services constituted 99.30% of the total revenue during the\nyear under consideration and the company was engaged in the business\nof computer software services.\n\n26.1 However, the TPO rejected the said company as comparable on\nthe ground that there was no clarity regarding the nature

SULTAN SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARNAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshri Sultan Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Haryana Rice Trader, Ward-1, 780, Gali No. 2, Behind Sector- Karnal 6, Durga Colony, Haryana- 132001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buups6518L Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

stood upheld by the learned CITA. Shri Sultan Singh 5. Before us, the learned AO argued that in the Tally package which is a computer software package maintained by the assessee for maintenance of books of accounts, only the first name would get reflected and that no employee has been

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

sections 14(a) and 14(b) of\nthe Copyright Act, but is a \"licence\" which imposes restrictions or\nconditions for the use of computer software. The EULA before us do not\ngrant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce\nthe computer software ... Central\nBoard of Direct Taxes [\"CBDT\"] to be referred in which \"remittance for\nroyalties\" and \"remittance for supply of articles or...computer software\"\nwere addressed as separate and distinct payments, the former attracting the\n\"royalty\" provision under Article 12 of the DTAA, and the latter being\ntaxable as business

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

respect of any right, property or information has always included transfer of all or any right for use or right to use a computer software (including granting of a license)? 4. We first take up the appeal filed by the Revenue. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are inter ... reading of the aforesaid agreement would show that what is granted to the distributor is only a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence to utilize computer software for ATMs in India, it being expressly stipulated that no copyright in the computer programme is transferred to the ultimate end- user. This

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

sections 14(a) and 14(b) of\nthe Copyright Act, but is a "licence" which imposes restrictions or\nconditions for the use of computer software. The EULA before us do not\ngrant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce\nthe computer software ... Central\nBoard of Direct Taxes ["CBDT"] to be referred in which "remittance for\nroyalties" and "remittance for supply of articles or...computer software"\nwere addressed as separate and distinct payments, the former attracting the\n"royalty" provision under Article 12 of the DTAA, and the latter being\ntaxable as business

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

sections 14(a) and 14(b) of\nthe Copyright Act, but is a "licence" which imposes restrictions or\nconditions for the use of computer software. The EULA before us do not\ngrant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce\nthe computer software ... Central\nBoard of Direct Taxes \"CBDT\" to be referred in which \"remittance for\nroyalties\" and \"remittance for supply of articles or...computer software\"\nwere addressed as separate and distinct payments, the former attracting the\n\"royalty\" provision under Article 12 of the DTAA, and the latter being\ntaxable as business

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

{"clean_text": "IT(TP)A No.2533/Bang/2019\n Assessment Year 2015-2016\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“B” BENCH

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 250/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115ASection 250Section 9(1)(vi)

softwaremanufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer softwarethrough distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyrightin the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxablein India. 5.2.6 In view of the above discussion and following the ratio ... decision of the Apex Court as discussed above, it is held that revenue received by the appellant from sale of computer software is business profit and the same is not taxable in India as the appellant does not have a PE in India. Hence, the addition of Rs.7

SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

wherein it held that 13 Shell International Petroleum Company Pvt. Ltd. AY 2022-23 consideration for use of computer software is not payment of royalty for use of copyright. Also, reliance placed by Id. DRP on the directions issued in the case of SITI

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

also enables passage of advice to the client. It would be childish to assume that the consideration being paid is for the provision of computer software. The consideration is nothing other than Royalty and this has been further elaborated later in this order. P a g e | 16 Booking.com

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the case may be seen. The assessee is engaged in the business of computer software development and services. The expenditure incurred in foreign currency on traveling, professional charges and onsite service charges are for development of software at clients site outside

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'A' BENCH, BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

software were not allowed as revenue expenditure, the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 60% considering the same as “computer including computer software. In contending so, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this tribunal in case of assessee’s holding company namely Infosys Ltd. pertaining

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'A' BENCH, BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Section 143Section 263Section 56Section 80P

view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the case may be seen. The\nassessee is engaged in the business of computer software development and services.\nThe expenditure incurred in foreign currency on traveling, professional charges and\nonsite service charges are for development of software at clients site outside

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Value of vehicles 2,39,28,712 Value of office equipments 29,75,702 Value of computer hardware 9,91,965 Value of computer software 20,40,911 Total 5,02,18,27,954 7. When questioned, the assessee submitted that the values were apportioned based on enterprise valuation carried ... Fixtures Computers & 19,69,130 60% 11,81,478 7,87,652 Computer Software Vehicles 1,42,00,832 15% 21,30,125 1,20,70,707 Total 60,92,34,250 6,80,23,443 depreciable assets Land

Showing 1–20 of 951 · Page 1 of 48

...