M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

195, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act are applicable. Has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant the material on record. The issue before us is limited only with respect to the disallowance of depreciation

KAWASAKI MICROELECTRONICS INC,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

195, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act are applicable. Has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant the material on record. The issue before us is limited only with respect to the disallowance of depreciation

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

195 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 4.3 Even otherwise, the disallowance, if any, should not be made in respect of payments actually made during the relevant previous year. 4.4 In any case and without prejudice, depreciation

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

195 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Page 4 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 18. Without prejudice, software payments made to residents totally amounting to Rs. 30,23,602was not liable for TDS under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to section

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

195 of the I. T. Act. It is ordered accordingly." QlikTech International AB (TS-537-ITAT-2021) Copy enclosed as Item 3 of Legal paperbook - In the present case, it was held that "consideration received by the assessee for sale of software cannot be treated as royalty under the provision of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as well

WINTAC LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation. The learned D.R. has submitted that once the assessee has violated the provisions of section 195, then, even the expenditure

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S W.S. ATKINS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and C

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation. The learned D.R. has submitted that once the assessee has violated the provisions of section 195, then, even the expenditure

M/S. BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

Depreciation 5,16,50,231 Total Operating Cost 173,13,76,920 Operating Profit 17,74,12,508 Operating Profit/Operating Costs 10.25% The assessee chose 21 companies as comparables whose 35th 6. percentile margin is 3.19% and 65th percentile of margin is 7.59% and therefore the assessee concluded that the international transaction of IT(TP)A No.338/Bang/2021 Page

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. 201(1). If any such person and in the cases referred to in Section 194, the principal officer and the company of which he is the principal officer

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. 201(1). If any such person and in the cases referred to in Section 194, the principal officer and the company of which he is the principal officer

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

195(Del. - Trib.) has held that insisting on daily balances of working capital requirements to compute working capital adjustment is not proper as it will be impossible to carry out such exercise and that working capital adjustment has to be based on the opening and closing working capital deployed. The Bench has also observed that that in Transfer Pricing Analysis

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

195 of the Act. Transfer pricing 19. The learned AG I Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO") / CIT(A) have erred in making/confirming an adjustment to the arm's length price with Page 4 of 42 respect to the Information Technology enabled Services ("ITeS") transaction entered into by the Appellant with its associated enterprise. 20. The learned AG / TPO / CIT(A) have

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

195 of the Act and for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, Grounds 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Grounds 5 to 11 – Deduction u/s.10B and 10AA of the Act and denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

section 14A of the Act. 6. Brought forward losses not granted 6.1 The AO has erred in law and on facts in not giving effect to the directions of the DRP by not granting the set-off of brought forward depreciation allowance of Rs.34,46,195

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

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 on one hand there is an element of "income" included in the reimbursement made to the Ultimate Holding Company

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SJS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as no technical services have been provided by the agents. It was also the observation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that there was no question of payment of royalty or technical fees to the agents on contract with the assessee. He has finally concluded that all the conditions bring

SJS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as no technical services have been provided by the agents. It was also the observation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that there was no question of payment of royalty or technical fees to the agents on contract with the assessee. He has finally concluded that all the conditions bring

M/S SUNQUEST INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevanshri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.552/Bang/2015

depreciation. The learned D.R. has submitted that once the assessee has violated the provisions of section IT(TP)A No.552/B/15 24 195

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

195 read with Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The Commissioner of Appeals held the expenditure on import of software is of revenue nature. If it is pertaining to business the profit from which is not exempt under Section 10A and, therefore, it is to be allowed as deduction