KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

189 (Karnataka)] Grounds on Merit holding that payment for interconnect usage charge is not chargeable to tax as 'royalty. Pressed Ground-5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. DRP erred in holding that the interconnect usage charges would fall under residuary Article 22 of India-Japan DTAA. Ground-6 On the facts

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

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

3) read with 147 of the Act, categorically observed that assessee was carrying out software development and is eligible to claim deduction under section 10B of the Act for bio-informatics division. He submitted that on perusal of all the details filed by assessee as called upon, he disallowed the claim of deduction under section 10B under genomics division

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTOR FUND,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

TDS. 6. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee in I.T.A. No.475/Bang/ 2013, ICICI Emerging Sectors Fund, filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,30,52,648. Thereafter the 4 ITA Nos.505(B)/13, 533-535(B)/14, 633- 638(B)/13, 697(B)/15 & 836-838(Bang)2013 aforesaid return of income was revised under

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

TDS under section 195 of the Act on the reimbursement to the Ultimate Holding Company thereby resulting in double taxation of same amount. 2.15. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by contradicting his own statement by stating that in one hand there is an element of income included in the reimbursement made to the Ultimate Holding

KARTIKEYAS MANGANESE & IRON ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,BELLARY vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS calculation is part of the books of accounts. No expenses can be disallowed merely on the basis of statement of third parties. The copies of the statements were not given to the assessee. No opportunity for cross examination has been provided to the assessee and in the absence of the same statements cannot be relied on. In addition

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

3 to Attachment 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

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

TDS o 14 Prepaid taxes ( comprising of 134,43,75,586 6 f Rs.114,43,75,586/- and advance tax o Rs.20,00,00,000/- ) 15 Tax Refund claimed in the Revised return of 6,73,13,880 6 income March 28th 2018 16 Date of completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) 23 in t 17 Income under normal provisions

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS”), as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 62. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234A of the Act even though the Return of Income was filed within the due date, and has also erred in re- computing interest under section 234C of the Act. 63. The learned

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS and FTC) i.e., only to the extent of INR 16,01,166 as against INR 1,26,92,220 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. Short grant of interest under section 244A of the Act: 35. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above ground No. 34, the learned AO has erred in short granting interest under

ITO WARD - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 154 of the Act dated 04.02.2015, determining adjustment in respect of the SDR segment. The Ld.TPO under 154 proceedings observed that, for SDR segment, the assessee used RPM as the most appropriate method and PLI was computed at 41.79% by using GP/sales. The assessee used following 8 comparables having average margin of 19.83%: Sl. No. Name of the company

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 154 of the Act dated 04.02.2015, determining adjustment in respect of the SDR segment. The Ld.TPO under 154 proceedings observed that, for SDR segment, the assessee used RPM as the most appropriate method and PLI was computed at 41.79% by using GP/sales. The assessee used following 8 comparables having average margin of 19.83%: Sl. No. Name of the company

M/S LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

3 G vide letter dated 21/09/2017 submitted that the warranty provision has been created as per Accounting Standard 29 and is based on the scientific formula as explained below:- Machine months X Repair rate X Cost per claim IT(TP)A No.35/Bang/2019 Page 14 of 21 Where: Machine months is the factor of the unexpired warranty period in months

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

189/- being the wages paid to these workers. Here, the CIT(A) mentioned that Section 80JJAA of the Act allows deduction to be claimed at the rate of 30% of the additional wages for three assessment years including the assessment year related to the previous year in which such employment is provided. On perusal of the details furnished

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

189,037 instead of Rs. 1,919,416,420 claimed in the return of income. 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is wholly owned subsidiary of M/s.Praxair Pacific Ltd., Mautitius. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of industrial gases. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

TDS was deducted at higher rate inadvertently however, the section was quoted correctly by the deductor.” 3 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) 3. At the outset the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) on three counts. a. NAFC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,81,01,752/- on account of deemed rental income from

M/S. LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS"), as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. 54. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in computing interest under section 234B of the Act and section 234C of the Act. 55. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section