DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS credit after verifying the claim of assessee. 20. The Ld.AO upon receipt of DRP directions called upon assessee to file various details. In compliance assessee filed all relevant details to the Ld.AO, however the same was not considered in accordance with the directions of DRP. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.AO, assessee as well as revenue

INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

10B of the Act, restricting claim only to the extent of Bioinformatics segment. Thus, we are of the opinion, that view taken by Ld.AO is a possible view. It is well settled proposition that merely because, Ld.CIT has taken different view, assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial. ITA Nos.868 & 869(B)/2016 25 7.2 For section

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

10B of the IT Act on account of the various additions made to the profits from business of th-CATADellant (other than the transfer pricing addition). 13. That the Learned AO erred in facts and in law, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

10B of the IT Act on account of the various additions made to the profits from business of th-CATADellant (other than the transfer pricing addition). 13. That the Learned AO erred in facts and in law, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS under Section 195 of the Act and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 6.5 The alternate claim put forth by the assessee is that even if, for any reason, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is sustained, deduction under Section 10B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

10B of the Act. 7.3 We note that the DRP did not express any opinion on this issue, and while passing the final assessment order, the Ld.AO confirmed the addition made in the draft assessment order. The Ld.AO confirmed the addition, as assessee could not furnish substantial details for deciding on the services rendered in the form of contract entered

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

10B of the Act. 7.3 We note that the DRP did not express any opinion on this issue, and while passing the final assessment order, the Ld.AO confirmed the addition made in the draft assessment order. The Ld.AO confirmed the addition, as assessee could not furnish substantial details for deciding on the services rendered in the form of contract entered

M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B of IT Act. These grounds are disposed of accordingly. 7. As per ground no. 18 raised, the issue in dispute is this that the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim towards purchase of software amounting to Rs. 36,92,961/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. As per the chart submitted before us, this

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B of IT Act. These grounds are disposed of accordingly. 7. As per ground no. 18 raised, the issue in dispute is this that the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim towards purchase of software amounting to Rs. 36,92,961/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. As per the chart submitted before us, this

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B of IT Act. These grounds are disposed of accordingly. 7. As per ground no. 18 raised, the issue in dispute is this that the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim towards purchase of software amounting to Rs. 36,92,961/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. As per the chart submitted before us, this

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B of IT Act. These grounds are disposed of accordingly. 7. As per ground no. 18 raised, the issue in dispute is this that the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim towards purchase of software amounting to Rs. 36,92,961/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. As per the chart submitted before us, this

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B of IT Act. These grounds are disposed of accordingly. 7. As per ground no. 18 raised, the issue in dispute is this that the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim towards purchase of software amounting to Rs. 36,92,961/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. As per the chart submitted before us, this

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS and therefore not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, Ground No.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 23 IT(TP)A Nos.799 & 942/Bang/2015 Infosys Limited 21. Ground No.4 - Computation of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. 21.1 In this ground, Revenue contends that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10B of the Rules to account for, inter alia, differences in (a) accounting practices, (b) depreciation adjustment, (c) marketing expenditure, (d) research and development expenditure and (e) risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies. The Ld. Panel erred in confirming the same. 6. Variation of 3% from the arithmetic mean The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LAB INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading ‘C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit of enterprise or eligible business is claimed and allowed as a deduction under any of those provisions for any assessment year

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

10B or section 10BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading ‘C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit of enterprise or eligible business is claimed and allowed as a deduction under any of those provisions for any assessment year

M/S. TIVO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VEVEO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

10B(3) (4) of the Rules, we agree with the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Assessee. Therefore, if at all R.S.Software Ltd., is to be regarded as a comparable company, then the margins for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 of the company have to be ignored because in those years they are to be regarded