M/S. VANTAGE AGORA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section 10A

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

GT NEXUS SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of GT Nexus Inc., USA. The assessee has set up offshore development centre for catering to the software development and maintenance need of the group in the global trade and logistic domain. Therefore the assessee is providing software development services

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we proceed to adjudicate the issues involved in the present appeal instead of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for consideration. 8. On going through the reassessment order passed by the AO, we take note of the fact that the assessee

AMITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear:2008-09

delay in filing the return will not amount to acceptance of claims made in the return of income and hence the said condonation will not absolve the assessee from complying with the condition prescribed under the proviso to section 10A

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 12A(1) of the Income Tax Act by filing Form No. 10A on 30-03-2021. Accordingly, provisional registration was granted by the competent authority in Form 10AC on 27-05-2021. 3. Subsequently, the assessee applied for permanent registration by filing Form 10AB on 22-09-2023. In response, the assessee was required to furnish evidence

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALAURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 12A(1) of the Income Tax Act by filing Form No. 10A on 30-03-2021. Accordingly, provisional registration was granted by the competent authority in Form 10AC on 27-05-2021. 3. Subsequently, the assessee applied for permanent registration by filing Form 10AB on 22-09-2023. In response, the assessee was required to furnish evidence

FLOWSERVE INDIA CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.23.9.2011

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80AC, 80- IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) and such language is not used in Rule 128(9), therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128(9) and exemption cannot be denied due to non- filing or delay in filing Form 67. 10. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has ignored the Judgement of the SMC Bench of ITAT

NARENDRA NATH RATNAKARAM,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 80AC, 80- IA(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) and such language is not used in Rule 128(9), therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128(9) and exemption cannot be denied due to non- filing or delay in filing Form 67. 10. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has ignored the Judgement of the SMC Bench of ITAT

MRS. SUVINA KRUPAL,SOMWARPET vs. ITO, MADIKERI

In the result appeal stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

condonation of delay in filing present appeal stands allowed. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5. Assessee is a company and filed its return of income for year under consideration on 31/10/2005 declaring nil income. The return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act and Page 6 of 28 ITA No.337 & 204/Bang/2014 the case was subsequently

M/S CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for the asst

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.429 & 430/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2007-08 & 2010-11) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Crossdomain Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Cenex, 94, 2Nd Main, Industrial Suburb Ii Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aaccc1271G Appellant By : Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Ashwin Rao, C.A Date Of Hearing : 5-10-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 6-10-2017 O R D E R

condone the delay of 494 days in ITA Nos.429-430/B/17 4 filing the appeals for asst. year 2007-08 and 2010-11 before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals for asst. years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are admitted for hearing and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for these appeals

RAM AVADHANULU JONNAVITHULA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

condoned. Page 6 of 10 9. We further note that the assessee is a salaried employee and employed with Tessolve Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd. and Tessolve Inc. during the year and earned income from salary, house property, capital gains, dividend and interest income. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.7,27,493 which was denied by the CPC. The assessee

JCIT vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA,

In the result, IT(TP)A No

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

10A. The Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the appellant's owns case for AY 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 (ITA No. 450 of 2008, ITA no. 451 of 2008 & ITA no. l37 of 2010) wherein it was held that telecommunication charges should be excluded both from export turnover

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/ SDELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, IT(TP)A No

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

10A. The Assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the appellant's owns case for AY 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 (ITA No. 450 of 2008, ITA no. 451 of 2008 & ITA no. l37 of 2010) wherein it was held that telecommunication charges should be excluded both from export turnover

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S FMC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the assessee's C

10A(a), a company having related party transactions cannot be considered as comparable company. This view also finds support from the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1969/D/2006, contrary to that in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd., the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi held that