“computer software”

M/S Nanobi Data and Analytics Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Nanobi Data & Analytics Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 1289/1090/E, Commissioner Of 18Th Cross, 3Rd Sector, Income Tax, Vs. Hsr Layout, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcn8822F Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 11/11/2016 By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts Of & The Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Not Giving The Appellant A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Impugned Matter. 3. That Notice Under Section 143(2) Having Been Served After The Expiry Of Time Limit Stipulated Under Section 143(2) Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law & The Order

private limited company registered under the companies Act 1956, it is 'engaged in the business of a) Designing developing, implementing licensing and marketing of computer software, computer systems and program products b) Rendering consultancy services in related areas Page 3 of 14 c) Establishing maintaining and /or running data processing

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

have erred, in law and in facts, by not granting allowance of tax depreciation amounting to INR 6,666,090 claimed on computer software under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

export turnover for purposes of claiming deduction, does not include fright, telecommunication charges, insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things or computer software outside India or expenses if any incurred in foreign exchange in providing technical services outside India. 2.3 Ld.AO accordingly restricted the deduction amounting

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

system had assisted in integrating all data and processes of TE Group into a single unified system with the usage of multiple components of computer software and hardware. With SAP being the preferred ERP being implemented the primary centre was based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with other centers at Fuquay-Variana

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Sharp Software Development India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

software development services greater than 75% of total operating revenue applied by the ld.TPO. Further, the company is engaged in development and maintenance of computer software and software development segment and also manufacturing EVM and VDB electronic board. The software development and IT enabled services and products are considered

M/S E-Land Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

Land Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 8 office during the year under consideration by purchasing Computer equipment for Rs.4,31,199/-, Computer software for Rs.71,072/- Furniture and fixtures for an amount of Rs.19,465/- and Office equipment for Rs.4,64,874/-. He further submitted that the expenses

Kennametal Inc, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A No.35/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Kennametal Inc., Vs. Acit (International Taxation), C/O. Kennametal India, Circle – 1(2), 8/9Th Mile, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 073. Pan: Aacck 6397 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

right, property, or information included and had always included the "transfer of all or any right for use or right to use a computer software". The court ruled that Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(w) expanded the scope of royalty under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). Prior ... rights contained in sections 14(a) or 14(b) of the Copyright Act. Since the end-user only gets the right to use computer software under a nonexclusive licence, ensuring the owner continues to retain ownership Sunder section 14(b) of the Copyright Act read with sub-section

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

NeAC has erred in law and on facts by holding that the Appellant could not substantiate its claim of manufacture and export of computer software from eligible units in Special Economic Zone ('SEZ'). The NeAC and the Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts in concluding that since Document ... NeAC has erred in law and on facts by concluding that the Appellant had made contrary submissions in connection to transmission or export of computer software outside India from its SEZ units without taking cognizance of the submissions made by the Appellant. 3.4. The NeAC

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by holding that the Appellant did not have any evidence for manufacture and export of computer software from eligible units in Special Economic Zone ('SEZ'). 3.3. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by concluding that the Appellant ... made contrary submissions in connection to transmission or export computer software outside India from its SEZ units without taking cognizance of the submissions made by the Appellant. 3.4. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by concluding that the various obligations and procedures prescribed under

M/S Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

right, property, or information included and had always included the "transfer of all or any right for use or right to use a computer software". The court ruled that Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) expanded the scope of royalty under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). Prior ... rights contained in sections 14(a) or 14(b) of the Copyright Act. Since the end-user only gets the right to use computer software under a non-exclusive licence, ensuring the owner continues to retain ownership under section 14(b) of the Copyright Act read with sub-section

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by holding that the Appellant did not have any evidence for manufacture and export of computer software from eligible units in Special Economic Zone ('SEZ'). 3.3. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by concluding that the Appellant ... made contrary submissions in connection to transmission or export computer software outside India from its SEZ units without taking cognizance of the submissions made by the Appellant. 3.4. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by concluding that the various obligations and procedures prescribed under

M/S. Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2011-12

without setting off of brought forward losses. b) The R&D activity in biotechnology is not included in the definition of “computer software” given in section 10B of the Act. 4. After hearing the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order passed ... given by the Ld. Principal CIT is that the R&D activity carried out by the assessee in biotechnology services would not qualify as ‘computer software’ within the meaning given in sec. 10B of the Act. Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has started claiming deduction

M/S Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2011-12

without setting off of brought forward losses. b) The R&D activity in biotechnology is not included in the definition of “computer software” given in section 10B of the Act. 4. After hearing the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order passed ... given by the Ld. Principal CIT is that the R&D activity carried out by the assessee in biotechnology services would not qualify as ‘computer software’ within the meaning given in sec. 10B of the Act. Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has started claiming deduction