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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

189 (Karnataka)]\nholding that payment for interconnect usage charge is not\nchargeable to tax as 'royalty.\nGround-5\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law,\nthe Ld. DRP erred in holding that the interconnect usage\ncharges would fall under residuary Article 22 of\nIndia-Japan DTAA.\nGround-6\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

189 (Karnataka)] Grounds on Merit\nholding that payment for interconnect usage charge is not\nchargeable to tax as 'royalty.\nPressed\nGround-5\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law,\nthe Ld. DRP erred in holding that the interconnect usage\ncharges would fall under residuary Article 22 of\nIndia-Japan DTAA.\nGround-6\nOn the facts

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

189 (Karnataka)] Grounds on Merit\nholding that payment for interconnect usage charge is not\nchargeable to tax as 'royalty.\nPressed\nGround-5\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law,\nthe Ld. DRP erred in holding that the interconnect usage\ncharges would fall under residuary Article 22 of\nIndia-Japan DTAA.\nGround-6\nOn the facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay petition\nis dismissed

189 (Karnataka)] holding that payment for interconnect usage\ncharge is not chargeable to tax as 'royalty'.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP has\nerred in holding that the interconnect usage charges would fall under residuary\nArticle 22 of India — Japan DTAA.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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