TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

10A. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any profits and gains derived by an section, a deduction of such profits and gains assessee from an industrial undertaking to as are derived by an undertaking from the which this section applies shall not be export of articles or things or computer included in the total income of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

capital fund. Thus, it is evident that interest on NCDs, interest on loan to Subsidiaries, interest on debentures, interest on Govt securities, interest on tax refunds, insurance claim, incentive from airlines and rental income from BSNL are offered to tax under the head Profits and gains of business and not under the head Income from other sources

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

Gains from Business' after claim of deduction under section 1 OA for the Bangalore and Pune units., the learned AO be directed to allow carry forward of the loss under the head 'Income from other Sources' amounting to Rs. 2, 16,017 for set off against income in subsequent years. 3. Interest under section 234B The learned AO has erred

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

gain if there is an increase in profits and the whole-time Directors are remunerated for that. At the risk of repetition, it is stated that this has been approved by the shareholders who are the ultimate authority in approving the Directors remuneration as per the Companies Act and overseen by the NRC. Subsequently, in the meeting held

DY.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

INFOSYS LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

10A and 10AA. 5.4 Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted as under: During the FY 2008-09, the assessee was considering acquisition of Axon Group PLC, an IT services company listed in London having expertise in SAP consultancy. Infosys had proposed a bid price of 600 pence for every Axon share. As per the agreement, it Page