“STPI unit”

DeductionsSection 10ASection 10A75 judgments

The decision most relied on for STPI unit is III v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (93 Taxmann.com 33), cited in 245 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on STPI unit

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court

245

citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

ITO v. Sak Soft Ltd.

30 SOT 55 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

When computing the deduction under Sections 10A or 10AA, if certain expenses (like those incurred in foreign currency or communication expenses) are excluded from 'export turnover' in the numerator, the same expenses must also be excluded from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent calculation.

CIT v. Regency Creations Ltd.

353 ITR 326 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

For a valid claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, especially for a 100% Export Oriented Unit under Explanation 2(iv), approval from the Director STPI requires mandatory ratification by the specified "Board". An alternative claim for deduction under Section 10A, even if not initially raised before the Assessing Officer, can be directed for consideration by the Tribunal.

CIT v. WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEM LTD.

358 ITR 518 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

To qualify for a Section 10A deduction, an undertaking must be independent of the assessee's existing undertakings, rather than merely an expansion of existing business.

PCIT v. Macquarie Global Services (P.) Ltd.

102 Taxmann.com 272 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

A deduction under Section 10AA cannot be withdrawn in a subsequent year if it was accepted in the first year of operations and the second year, by re-examining factors relevant to the initial year.

CIT v. Technovate E Solutions P.Ltd.

354 ITR 110 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Approval from the Director of STPI is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, even for Export Oriented Units (EOUs).

Judgments citing STPI unit

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 15/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 234B

sector providing IT enabled services, BPO services etc. The Ld.AO observed that assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10AA from three types of unit. One being STPI unit and other being SEZ unit, both in India and the last being USA branch in the following manner. STPI Unit SEZ Unit US Branches ... Ld.AO was of the opinion that the assessee converted the loss of STPI unit into profit and the profit of USA branch into loss. The assessee was therefore asked to substantiate the claim. The Ld.AO also noted that due to additional transfer pricing billing, the profit of SEZ unit

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

learned AO in making disallowance of Rs.11,78,884/– being Custom duty paid by the Appellant on de–bonding of fixed assets belonging to STPI unit and customs duty for assets shifting treating the same as capital expenditure. Ground No. 3-Disallowance under section ... debonding and the expenditure was not for acquiring any asset or for adding value to any asset, as same was compulsory on debonding from STPI unit. From the perusal of record, we find that claim of the assessee was denied by the lower authorities without examining details pertaining to these

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 773/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

reconstruction of an existing business or non-fulfilment of any other prescribed condition. The assessee has not produced SOW for each and every STPI unit to support its contentions that the eligible unit has carried out software development activity. (b) ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:- 4 IBM India ... thoroughly by IBM India P Ltd. Not even a single software development agreement was registered by IBM India P Ltd with any of the STPI units. For the onsite development of computer software the company has unable to establish the direct nexus between the eligible unit and the client

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ibm India (P) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, C.A (A.R)For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Advocate, Standing

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai 6

ITA 246/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.246/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 801, Mindspace Business Park Pvt. Ltd., Building No.5 & 6, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli East, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan: Aabci-5573-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit,Mumbai -6 Circle 15(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.C.Tiwari, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Balance Taxable Income/Loss E=(C-D) (19,320,701) 142,149,686 - Mumbai Unit: S.No. Particulars Unit 203 Unit 204 STPI Unit 206 A Business Profit after Addition & Deletions 72,720,907 (123,476,750) 29,179,539 B Add:- Other sources income from FD - 2,392,772 - C Gross ... Yokogawa India Ltd.(supra). In the other two eligible units the assessee has suffered losses which the assessee is entitled to carry forward. One STPI unit which is non-eligible unit the assessee has suffered losses. On grossing of taxable income/loss of each unit there is net loss of Rs.2

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

computing the deduction u/s. 10A and section 10B of the Act, the Ld.AO set off the brought forward losses incurred by the non-eligible STPI units (I, II & III), amounting to Rs.3,918,182, with the profits of the other eligible STPI units (V, VI & VII). 5.7 The Ld.AR submitted ... group and its clients. It was submitted that, after a considerable period, of time owing to changes and decline, the assessee closed down the STPI units I & II during FY 2007-08. The Ld.AR submitted that the allegation by the Ld.AO that the units were formed by splitting

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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)

IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 705/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.705/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Circle – 3(1)(2), Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru. (Formerly Known Symphony Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Plot No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Sy. No.85 & 86, Sadaramangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan: Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 40A

During this period, the Mumbai unit was not registered with STPI. The assessee claimed this loss against the profits generated from other non-STPI units. The AO did not allow the set off. The Ld DRP directed the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and allow

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

disallowance as contended by the assessee. However, while giving relief, the AO has reduced the amount of Rs.16,01,092/- from the “income from STPI unit”. The Ld AR submitted that the above said disallowance actually relates to non-STPI unit and hence the same should have been reduced from ... STPI unit. Accordingly he submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that double disallowance may be removed from non-STPI unit. 19. We have heard learned Departmental Representative on this issue. Since the claim of the assessee requires verification, we restore this

Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Private Limited (Formerly Known As Moody'S Analytics Knowledge Services (India) Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2689/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2689/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, M/S. Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. (Formerly Known As Moody’S Analytics Knowledge Circle – 4(1)(2), Services (India)Private Limited), Bengaluru. Elixir Chancery Building, 7Th Floor, Municipal Door #135/1-2, Residency Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaeca 9391 H Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

erred, in law and in facts, by not accepting the re-allocation of certain common expenses between the units of the Appellant (viz., STPI unit, SEZ Unit — I and SEZ Unit - II) as determined by the Appellant; ( c) The learned AO has erred. in law and in facts ... respect of SEZ unit-1 of the Appellant, by re-alloca. certain common expenses in certain manner between the STPI unit and SEZ units of the Appell wherein. a. The learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, by re-allocating certain common expel amongst the units

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1460/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Circle-2, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs6704P Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

SALES Sale of Licence 2,32,37,588 Software Services 8,91,77,023 Export from SEZ Unit 47,85,72,420 Export from STPI Unit 16,29,00,630 Revenue from Subscription 1,64,33,714 Total 77,03,21,375 71. It is also submitted that segmental results

DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1761/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Circle-12(1), Unit No. 86 & 87, Sdf Iii, New Delhi Seepz Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb2817R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 80H

year was allowed on alternative ground, viz. that even if the unit is held to have been converted from existing domestic unit to an STPI unit, it would still be eligible for deduction u/s 10A from the date of conversion as the said A Y was within the unexpired period ... existing export unit to STPI. There was no export in F.Y. 1999-00. It is mitted that existing domestic it was not converted to STPI unit. 2 2 Covering letter of Covering letter filed along with the application to demonstrate the application filed with STPI total documents filed with

M/S. Saic India Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6842/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Saic India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Wipro Energy It Services India Circle-7(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi A-67, Sector-57, Noida Pan: Aaaci6192A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Manoneet Dalal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 145Section 234BSection 92Section 92C

said company it can be seen that the sales and operating income show sale of license, software services, export of SEZ unit, export from STPI unit and revenue from subscription. However, segmental results are not provided in the Annual Report. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that this company‟s system