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

Disallowance of 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

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

Disallowance of 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

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

Disallowance of 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

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

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

11A) of the Act, as the export proceeds were realized by the IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016 Page 3 of 37 Appellant before the completion of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Non-reduction of telecommunication expenses (reduced from Export turnover) amounting to INR 2,23,44,926 from Total turnover for computing deduction

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

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

11A) of the Act, as the export proceeds were realized by the IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016 Page 3 of 37 Appellant before the completion of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Non-reduction of telecommunication expenses (reduced from Export turnover) amounting to INR 2,23,44,926 from Total turnover for computing deduction

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

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

11A) of the Act, as the export proceeds were realized by the IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016 Page 3 of 37 Appellant before the completion of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Non-reduction of telecommunication expenses (reduced from Export turnover) amounting to INR 2,23,44,926 from Total turnover for computing deduction

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

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

11A) of the Act, as the export proceeds were realized by the IT(TP)A No.492 & 451/B/2015 & 402 & 556/B/2016 Page 3 of 37 Appellant before the completion of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Non-reduction of telecommunication expenses (reduced from Export turnover) amounting to INR 2,23,44,926 from Total turnover for computing deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S YAHOO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.38,69,891. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground Nos.3A and 3B raised by the assessee read as follow: - “3A. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by holding that the additional revenue of Rs.157,993,598 would not be eligible

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, HAVERI vs. M/S.MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,, HAVERI

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.38,69,891. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground Nos.3A and 3B raised by the assessee read as follow: - “3A. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts by holding that the additional revenue of Rs.157,993,598 would not be eligible

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

11A(4). To remove any doubts in this regard, it is reiterated that any approval under section 80G(5) on or after 1.10.2009 would be a one time approval which would be valid till it is withdrawn. 5.1 As can be seen above, the existing approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act expiring on or after 1st October

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

11A(4). To remove any doubts in this regard, it is reiterated that any approval under section 80G(5) on or after 1.10.2009 would be a one time approval which would be valid till it is withdrawn. 5.1 As can be seen above, the existing approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act expiring on or after 1st October

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed a sum of Rs.20,07,33,092/- towards increase in the profit or decrease in loss because of deviation, if any, as per Income Computation Disclosure Standards notified under section 145(2) [column 11a

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed a sum of Rs.20,07,33,092/- towards increase in the profit or decrease in loss because of deviation, if any, as per Income Computation Disclosure Standards notified under section 145(2) [column 11a

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S VEE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

section 155(11A) of IT Act. Accordingly the claim of assessee for deduction u/s.10B of IT Act was disallowed. Aggrieved

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing the claim made u/s 54 of the Act. The said assessment order was subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which is pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the ld. PCIT examined the assessment records by invoking the provisions of section 263 f the Act and observed that the assessee's property situated at Bommanahalli, Bangalore

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

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

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light