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

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

8 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A Nos. 557 & 558/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 20/Bang/2017 [(2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC)] which held that a retrospective amendment in law does change the tax liability in respect of an income, with retrospective effect, but it cannot change the tax withholding liability, with retrospective effect. The above principle has also been

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

8 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A Nos. 557 & 558/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 20/Bang/2017 [(2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC)] which held that a retrospective amendment in law does change the tax liability in respect of an income, with retrospective effect, but it cannot change the tax withholding liability, with retrospective effect. The above principle has also been

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

8 from April 01, 2008 entered into between Invitrogen Corporation and the Appellant (`the R & D Agreement'), which provides that the Appellant is engaged in research and development activities relating to software development. 10.The learned CIT has failed to appreciate that fact that the reply provided by the CSEZ has confirmed that the Appellant is engaged in the business

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

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

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

8, wherein it was mentioned that royalty has not been subjected to TDS. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee contended that royalty was payable in respect of export sales and was therefore not liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act and in support thereof placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court

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

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

section 10A." Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has followed the earlier order for the Assessment Year 2004-05 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 (supra) being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon. 19. Ground No.2 – Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 19.1 In this ground (supra), Revenue assails the action of the learned CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow expenditure incurred for earning of exempt income under Section 14A of the Act as per the estimation proposed

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

10B. In the matter of GENERAL FINANCE CO. vs. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of Section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.07.2017 from

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