OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

depreciation adjustment be made in order to determine the ALP for the international transactions. 18. The next issue through ground No. 2.10 and 2.11 relate to the working capital adjustment and in this regard it has been repeatedly held by the Tribunal that working capital adjustment should be allowed while determining the ALP without putting any cap thereon. Therefore

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

section does not govern depreciation claimed on payments which had been capitalized. To support this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions in PCIT Vs. Tally Solutions (P) Ltd. (2021) 430 ITR 527 (Kar); CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd in ITA No. 57 of 2009 (P&H HC)]; ITO Vs. Kawasaki Microelectronics Inc. [IT(IT)A No.1221/13/2014]; Sartorius Stedim

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

138 pages enclosing therein audited financial statements for the year ending 31.03.2005, the computation of total income for the assessment year 2005-2006, applications filed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act on 13.01.2009, 07.03.2014 and 19.06.2017, Income Tax Return and computation for 6 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005, submissions made before the Income

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

138 pages enclosing therein audited financial statements for the year ending 31.03.2005, the computation of total income for the assessment year 2005-2006, applications filed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act on 13.01.2009, 07.03.2014 and 19.06.2017, Income Tax Return and computation for 6 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005, submissions made before the Income

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

138 pages enclosing therein audited financial statements for the year ending 31.03.2005, the computation of total income for the assessment year 2005-2006, applications filed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act on 13.01.2009, 07.03.2014 and 19.06.2017, Income Tax Return and computation for 6 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005, submissions made before the Income

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

138 pages enclosing therein audited financial statements for the year ending 31.03.2005, the computation of total income for the assessment year 2005-2006, applications filed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act on 13.01.2009, 07.03.2014 and 19.06.2017, Income Tax Return and computation for 6 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005, submissions made before the Income

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

depreciation on the software expenses were duly given in the earlier assessment years 3.3 Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The Learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has entered into a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) with Switzerland

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

138 – Mumbai ITAT 7.2.3 In the above case, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal was considering the applicability of section 28(iv) of the I T Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that during the course of assessee’s profession, a sum of Rs.29,60,000/- was realised/collected as service tax payable and the same

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 515 (Bangalore-Trib.)- para 4.5.8); and - CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (reported in [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC)- paras 12-21). 7. The ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee made certain exports

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 515 (Bangalore-Trib.)- para 4.5.8); and - CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (reported in [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC)- paras 12-21). 7. The ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee made certain exports

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

138 (Karnataka)-paras 14-20); - Quality Engineering & Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 515 (Bangalore-Trib.)- para 4.5.8); and - CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (reported in [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC)- paras 12-21). 7. The ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee made certain exports

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.705/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Circle – 3(1)(2), Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru. (Formerly Known Symphony Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Plot No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Sy. No.85 & 86, Sadaramangala Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan: Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

depreciation under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on computer software. (d) Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act. (e) Alternative contention for enhancement in deduction under section 10A in respect of MTM losses. (f) Non-set off of losses of Mumbai unit as per direction of Ld DRP. (g) Deduction claimed for education cess paid

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.731/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, Ltu, No.66/3, Adjacent To Lrde, Bangalore. Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaact 5445M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) (Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 6.1.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2020

section 263 of the Act, was of the view that the Assessment Order passed by he AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason that the Assessee had claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery under sec 32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs 1,95,32,382/-. According to the CIT, on verification

M/S. WIELAND METALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

138 33.62% of Rs.79,28,627 being Machinery depreciation on P&M (Page 17 of the Paper book) 3 Rent - Factory 35,41,339 Annexure 2 of submissions filed on 05-08-2018 to TPO (Page 226 4 Electricity charges – Factory 4,53,110 of Paper book) 5 Repairs – Factory Building 3,37,436 6 Repairs – Machinery

CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

138,77,07,776. The DRP where the Hon'ble DRP upheld the position taken by the AO. 8. The ld. AR submitted at the outset that similar disallowance of depreciation on assets given under finance lease was made by the CIT for AY 2008-09 in assessee’s own case, by initiating proceedings under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

138/ 2015 11.06.2015 Milagres Church Krupanidhi Education Trust Vs DIT ( E) 495/ 2014 20.02.2015 5.2.3 In view of the binding decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'bleITAT, Bangalore, I hereby direct the AO to allow appellant's claim of depreciation amounting to Rs.95,37,11,460/-on fixed assets during the year as application

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S MANGALORE JESUIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit. Thereafter she further pointed out that as per para 17 of this judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it was held that the issue is squarely covered in favour

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

depreciation under section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. 13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule

SUBRAMANYA KARTHIK,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

138 taxmann.com 571 wherein held as under: _ In this case the assessee filed his return of income belatedly and return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by observing that "in schedule Chapter VI-A, under Part-C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return