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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act not only covers amount payable as on the last day of the previous year but also covers amount actually paid. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), we uphold the orders of the authorities below and consequently dismiss ground No.2.2 raised by the assessee. 8. Ground No.3.1 - Disallowance

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. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

disallowances under Section 14A and 80G of the Act and prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative objected to the submissions and supported the order of TPO and DRP and relied on the judicial decisions. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The LdAr made submissions for exclusion of 3 comparables

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

133(6). g) The Ld. Panel erred in confirming the same. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO also erred in treating provisions for doubtful h) debts as non-operating in nature while calculating the net margins •of the comparable companies: The Ld. Panel also erred in confirming the same. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO also erred on facts in erroneously computing

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

133(6) of the Act, which were not available with the Appellant at the time of preparing its TP documentation. 1.15.2 The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO / TPO have erred in law by relying upon the information not available in public domain while carrying out the benchmarking analysis under the Act. 1.16 Not granting working capital adjustment

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

disallowance of Royalty amounting to Rs.9,90,11,636/-.  deduction claimed by assessee under section 10 A of the Act, was restricted to Rs.27,91,365/-, being 80% of expenses claimed.  Donation paid amounting to Rs.2,65,000/- claimed as deduction under section 10 A 4. Aggrieved by order passed by Ld.AO, assessee is in appeal before

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.1670/Bang/2012 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block 1, No.6 & 24, Epip Zone Phase 1, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066 …. Appellant. Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, Cit-Iii (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 5.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2008-09 By The Dcit, Circle 11(4), Bangalore Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.29.10.2012, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Rws 144C(8) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.17.9.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

section 133(6) of the Act, is not economically valid. In doing so, the learned TPO erred in rejecting companies such as Akshay Software Technologies Limited, Prithvi Information Solutions Limited, Silverline Technologies Limited, Zylog Systems Limited and VJIL Consulting Limited. 6.15 in not maintaining consistency in applying the filters of rejecting companies with abnormal fluctuating margin, diminishing revenue/ persistent losses

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 133(6) of the Act. It is observed that there is no segmental information in respect of this company in annual report. We are unable to understand how segmentation was done by Ld.TPO and reconciliation of annual report. In such a situation we are of the opinion that Flextronics Software Solutions Ltd (seg) cannot not be considered

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance will only go to increase the income for\nwhich deduction should be allowed under section 80P(2)(a)(i),\nresulting in no variation to the assessee's income.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate\nbench of this Tribunal in case of State Financial Corporation v.\nACIT reported in (2021) 133

SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

133(6) of the Act without providing the Assessee information so collected or providing an opportunity to cross examine the companies concerned or their authorized representative; b. Adopting a flawed process in issuing notices u/s133(6) and relying upon the replies thereto to compute the ALP; and c. Not detailing the process as to how and to whom the notices

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

133, as against sum of Rs. 3,57,77,35,067 taken by the learned AO. 9. Deduction under section 35 / 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,72,82,988 9.1. The • learned AO erred in not considering the allowance of deduction under section 35(1) of the Act, pertaining to amounts not recognized by the Department

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

disallowance will only go to increase the income for\nwhich deduction should be allowed under section 80P(2)(a)(i),\nresulting in no variation to the assessee's income.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate\nbench of this Tribunal in case of State Financial Corporation v.\nACIT reported in (2021) 133