GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

TDS u/s 192 of the I.T.Act. It was stated that to the extent of discount, the holding company had cross charged the assessee. It was stated that it is in respect of cross charges incurred towards options exercised and shares purchased by employees of the 34 IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2021. M/s.Global E-Business Operations Pvt.Ltd. assessee, the same was claimed

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 of the Act — INR 7,29,00,000 2.1. The Learned AO and Honorable DRP have erred in law and on facts, in disallowing the expenditure on ESOP of INR 7,29,00,000 under section 37 of the Act without appreciating the submissions furnished by the Appellant. 2.2. The Learned AO and Honorable DRP have erred

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

section 92B, with retrospective IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021 M/s. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 73 effect from 1.4.2002 and sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of this Explanation provides that: (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include— . . . . . (c) capital financing, including any type of longterm or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee’s income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue’s this ground of appeal, is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed. Deletion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee’s income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue’s this ground of appeal, is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed. Deletion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee’s income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue’s this ground of appeal, is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed. Deletion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE., BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

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

TDS on the payment made to the MSI.” 8. The fact for the year under consideration being similar wherein the sales commission paid under the same agreement, we are of the view that the above decision of the coordinate bench is squarely applicable to the impugned issue for the year under consideration also. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

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

TDS on the payment made to the MSI.” 8. The fact for the year under consideration being similar wherein the sales commission paid under the same agreement, we are of the view that the above decision of the coordinate bench is squarely applicable to the impugned issue for the year under consideration also. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

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

TDS on the payment made to the MSI.” 8. The fact for the year under consideration being similar wherein the sales commission paid under the same agreement, we are of the view that the above decision of the coordinate bench is squarely applicable to the impugned issue for the year under consideration also. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 258/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Eit Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy #39/40, Digital Park, Commissioner Of Electronic City Phase Income Tax, Ii, Circle – 2(1)(1), Hosur Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaacd4078L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 14/02/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred As "Drp" For Brevity) ("Ao", "Tpo" & "Drp"

TDS u/s 192 of the I.T.Act. It was stated that to the extent of discount, the holding company had cross charged the assessee. It was stated that it is in respect of cross charges incurred towards options exercised and shares purchased by employees of the assessee, the same was claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the I.T.Act. The A.O., however

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 17(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellant deducts the appropriate tax at source (‘TDS’) under section 192 of the Act. 20.2 The cost of shares granted by the Ultimate Holding Company to the eligible employees of the Appellant are cross charged to the Appellant by the Ultimate Holding Company. The actual amount cross charged by Ultimate Holding Company