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

2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require no adjudication, are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 6. Ground Nos.3 (3.1 to 3.3) to 5 – Deduction under section 10A of the Act 6.1 Ground Nos. 3 to 5 (supra) are raised in relation to the computation of the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Ground No.3

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

2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require no adjudication, are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 6. Ground Nos.3 (3.1 to 3.3) to 5 – Deduction under section 10A of the Act 6.1 Ground Nos. 3 to 5 (supra) are raised in relation to the computation of the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Ground No.3

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

2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require no adjudication, are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 6. Ground Nos.3 (3.1 to 3.3) to 5 – Deduction under section 10A of the Act 6.1 Ground Nos. 3 to 5 (supra) are raised in relation to the computation of the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Ground No.3

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

2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require no adjudication, are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 6. Ground Nos.3 (3.1 to 3.3) to 5 – Deduction under section 10A of the Act 6.1 Ground Nos. 3 to 5 (supra) are raised in relation to the computation of the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Ground No.3

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

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

disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement was made, the benefit of claim u/s 10AA from the old SEZ cannot be allowed. 5. The CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to assessing officer on issue relating to section 80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee

M/S. BIRLASOFT LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD.,),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Birlasoft Ltd. (Formerly Known As Kpit Technologies Ltd.) The Assistant # 35 & 36, Rajiv Commissioner Gandhi Infotech Park, Of Income Tax, Phase – 1, Midc Circle – 11(5), Hinjawadi, Bangalore. Vs. Pune – 411 057. Pan: Aaack7308N Appellant Respondent

2(45) of the Act? (iii) Whether even after the amendment made with effect from 1.04.2001, Section 10A of the Act continues to remain an exemption section and not a deduction section? (iv) Whether losses of other 10A units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of 10A units before deductions under section 10A are effected

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

2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription 14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S MCML SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

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

2,02,01,133/- under normal provisions, after claiming deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and ‘book profits’ under section 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.4,98,44,075/-. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 19.01.2009 to claim credit for TDS. The return was processed under section

M/S MCML SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

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

2,02,01,133/- under normal provisions, after claiming deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and ‘book profits’ under section 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.4,98,44,075/-. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 19.01.2009 to claim credit for TDS. The return was processed under section

M/S MCML SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

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

2,02,01,133/- under normal provisions, after claiming deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and ‘book profits’ under section 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.4,98,44,075/-. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 19.01.2009 to claim credit for TDS. The return was processed under section

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

2 : 38. Now coming to the 2nd part of disallowance by the Ld. AO under section 10A regarding the voluntary

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

2. The ld. Assessing Officer be directed to allow the claim of credit for state taxes paid outside India either as a deduction in computing the total income or as relief under Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even in respect of income which is exempt under Section 10A and 10AA of the Income

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

2,15,26,941/- under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the impugned payments were not chargeable to tax in India, not liable for TDS under section 195 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 2.2 Even otherwise, since subscription charges were actually paid

MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances :- (i) Addition towards PF and ESI : Rs.1,48,634. (ii) Towards excess depreciation : Rs.3,37,292. (iii) Excess deduction under Section 10A : Rs.11,92,860. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB were computed as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2,05,86,685. Add 1)Income tax paid Rs.24,19,800. 2

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowances :- (i) Addition towards PF and ESI : Rs.1,48,634. (ii) Towards excess depreciation : Rs.3,37,292. (iii) Excess deduction under Section 10A : Rs.11,92,860. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB were computed as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2,05,86,685. Add 1)Income tax paid Rs.24,19,800. 2

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

2. IT Enabled Services - 44,29,98,317 3. Marketing Services - 1,94,11,562 Reduction in deduction under section 10A and 10B of the Act 63,37,62,681 As per ROI 99,59,24,204 Less: As per DAO 36,21,61,523 Disallowance