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

801 in the provisions of section 10A etc. Thus, the attempt of the assessee to extrapolate the meaning from a specifically restricted proviso is untenable. The AO also mentioned that wherever the Parliament had contemplated the benefit to be extended to the software sector, specific reference has been made as in section 10A or 10B where the words used

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS cannot be claimed as a deduction. I submit that if this Hon'ble Bench permits the deduction on the ground that some person has to claim the deduction of section 80IA, it would amount to grave injustice. This kind of interpretation may lead to claim of double deduction. Further, due emphasis is to be made on the facts

M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD ,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

TDS to the tune of Rs.31,69,801 to the assessee in the draft order. The assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP issued directions directing the TPO/AO to rework the transfer pricing adjustment with respect to international transactions pertaining to Engineering Design services segment and sale of finished goods to AE. The DRP confirmed the additions made

GANESH ROOFING ,SHIBAMOGGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1 , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ganesh Roofing, Acit, No.676, Sagar Road, Circle –1, Auto Complex, Vs. Shimoga. Shimoga – 577 204. Pan : Aanfg 6019 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. R. Vivek, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023

801/- is Page 3 of 4 disallowed and brought to tax by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act". 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) rejected the grounds relating to the above addition by observing as under: “During the appellate proceedings, the appellant again reiterated that the charges

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

TDS 22,80,801 Balance Payable 58,78,782 Add: Interest u/s 234B 10,00,000 Total 48,78,782 Add: Refund issued u/s 143(1) 11,20,000 Add: Interest u/s 234B 1,73,600 Total Balance Payable 82,21,470 Ld.AR further submitted that assessing officer while passing final assessment order did not granted working capital adjustment even

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

801/-. The additions made in the said Assessment Order was with regard to Transfer Pricing adjustments. 4. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2021. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs.91,34,83,890/- (declared in the original

ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS Delayed Payments (2,513) Total Expenses 2,567,801,646 Operating Profit 280,529,711 OP/OC 10.92% 6. The assessee chose the following comparables in the TP study. Determination of Arm’s Length Range Sl. Company Database Operating No. Margin 1 Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. Prowess -3.29% 2 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd. Prowess -1.81% 3 Evoke Technologies

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37 of the Income-tax Act would be relevant. The said provision reads as follows: "SECTION 37 GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes

MYCON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

801 (estimated business income) and Rs. 27,36,573 (disallowance under section 36(1)(va) sustained in the assessment order. c) Grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Briefly stated the facts show that assessee is a limited company engaged in the business

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

TDS certificates nor actual consideration were received 5.2 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of the withholding taxes deducted by foreign enterprises, disregarding the submission that even if income has to be recognized on gross amount basis, the amounts deducted are to be allowed as deduction

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

801, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2014. ITA Nos.125 & 126/Bang/2020 Page 4 of 26 6. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR conceded that the issue is held against the assessee by the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14 [IT(TP)A 2569/Bang/2017], wherein it was held as under:- “36. We have heard both

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 12, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

801, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2014. ITA Nos.125 & 126/Bang/2020 Page 4 of 26 6. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR conceded that the issue is held against the assessee by the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14 [IT(TP)A 2569/Bang/2017], wherein it was held as under:- “36. We have heard both

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

801/- (including Rs. 16,55,390/- paid to non-residents which was capitalized for tax purposes and depreciation @ IT(TP)A Nos.373 & 374/Bang/2015 Page 15 of 27 60% and thereon). The AO disallowed the depreciation claimed to an extent of Rs. 36,35,280/- on the reason that entire amount of software purchase was to be disallowed

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37 of the I T Act. 16. The Learned AO erred in not giving TDS credit amounting to Rs.1,37,88,075/- and no reasons or explanations have been given for denying the credit. ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B& C 17. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, B& C of the Act. Further prays that

M/S. AARIS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

section 32 (i) is considered the depreciation under this provision is to be restricted to the amount considering that amalgamation has not taken place and since in the hands of the amalgamating companies the depreciation on goodwill would have been zero there cannot be deprecation in the hand of the amalgamated company. In support reliance was placed on the decision

M/S. LALITHAMBA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA ,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

801 55\nStamp Trading Suspenss\n200,000.00\nBuilding Deposit\n540 000 00\nSmart Shope Trading Bal\n18,409,47\nSouhardha TDS Receive\n42.591 00\nTelephone Deposit\n3.300.00\nIncome Tax Refund Due\n15,030 00\nTD.S\n129.663.00\nT.D.S. Suspense\n5,319.00\n1,558,194 02\nPRELIMINARY EXPENSES:\n(To the extent not written oll or adj)\nal Pre-operative Exp.\n156.805.20

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

section would not apply to non-rural advances. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A).” 5.4 Following the above said decision, we hold that the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) is not legally correct. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) with regard to his alternative decision

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

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

801 Total Expenditure 9,38,62,75,318 Total Operating expenses 9,31,21,08,517 Net Operating Profit (65,70,77,791) Net operating profit margin based on sales (%) -7.59% 6. The TPO rejected the CUP method and proceeded to apply TNMM as MAM. The TPO made fresh search of comparables and arrived at OP/OR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S LOGICA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhuryit(Tp)A No.1621/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Logica Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With Cgi Information Vs. Tax, Systems & Management Circle-11(5), Consultants Private Limited) Bangalore E-City, Tower 2, 95/1 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase 1 (West), Bangalore Pan: Aaacl3330M Appellant Respondent

TDS to an extent of Rs. 2.61 Crores. He also recomputed deduction u/s. 10A by reducing some expenditure from export turnover. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) and raised various grounds on use of data, filters, functionality etc. Ld.CIT(A) accepted turnover filter and excluded Infosys in soft ware division