BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

540 results for “disallowance”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,420Delhi2,060Kolkata820Bangalore540Ahmedabad522Jaipur383Chennai308Pune269Surat212Indore199Chandigarh193Hyderabad143Raipur118Cochin92Lucknow75Rajkot66Visakhapatnam61Cuttack61Nagpur56Amritsar53Guwahati47Calcutta41Agra36Allahabad32Karnataka27Ranchi26Telangana19Patna18Jodhpur11Dehradun11SC11Varanasi11Jabalpur6Panaji5Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79Section 143(3)57Disallowance43Section 153A42Transfer Pricing34Section 92C28Section 143(2)27Comparables/TP27Section 14826

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

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

ITA 1670/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

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 :-

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, CIT-III (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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

Showing 1–20 of 540 · Page 1 of 27

...
Section 133A25
Section 25024
Section 13224

M/S TRILOGY E- BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P.) A. No.33/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.1/2, Lalitha Nilaya, 4Th Cross, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bhopsandra, Bangalore-560 094. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore-560 001. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P.) A. No.115/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.5.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 6.11.2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 2. The Assessee-Company Was Incorporated In June 2000 & Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Versata International Inc., (Previously Known As Trilogy Inc.). During The Financial Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Provided Software Development Services As Well As Call Centre Services To Its Associated Enterprises (In Short ‘Aes’). The Assessee Is Compensated On Cost +10% Basis By Its Aes For The Services Provided By The Assessee. The Financial Results Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Recorded By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short ‘Tpo’) In Paragraph 2.1 As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

section 133(6) of the Act, the company has categorized itself as a pure software developer and therefore included this company as a comparable as the assessee was also a provider of software development services. Before us, in addition to the plea that the company was functionally different, the assessee submitted that this company was excluded from the list

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1599/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

133(6) of the Act were issued. 3 Erroneous data used by the AO/TPO a) The AO/TPO has erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting the transfer pricing study by the Appellant or at the time of undertaking of assessment

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

ITA 1319/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 92C

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

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1487/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

disallowance of deduction u/s.10A : Rs.17,63,449. (ii) Miscellaneous Income : Rs.9,502. (iii) T.P. Adjustment : Rs.2,35,10,275. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.7.9.2012, the assessee has preferred this appeal arising the following grounds :- “ I. Transfer Pricing. 1. The ld. Assessing Officer and the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing

AMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 437/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 92C(3)

133(6) of the Act, which is grossly unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same i) The AO/TPO cherry picked comparable companies by way of (a) a non-methodical search process, and (b) exercising non- uniformity in the application of filters and the Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same. j) Without prejudice to the above

ITO vs. M/S AAMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 92C(3)

133(6) of the Act, which is grossly unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same i) The AO/TPO cherry picked comparable companies by way of (a) a non-methodical search process, and (b) exercising non- uniformity in the application of filters and the Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same. j) Without prejudice to the above

TRIANZ HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1568/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T(Tp).A No1568/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K P, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 143(3)

6 mark-to -market loss on derivatives amounting to Rs. 1,000,000 based on the principles of prudence enunciated in AS-1 and placed reliance on the ratios in Mumbai Special Bench of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [2010-TIOL-447-ITAT MUM-SB], the Apex Court decision in the case

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

disallowed the commission paid to non residents amounting to Page 41 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 Rs.23,68,35,533/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 13.4. The Ld.AR at the outset filed a list showing break up of commission paid to non residents during the year was as under: Vendor

TEKTRONIX ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1318/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234B

section 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and identifying additional comparables based on the same. 5. The Honourable DRP/ Leanred AO has erred in law and on facts in upholding the ALP of 21.48 percent as proposed by the TPO, for the software development services rendered by the Appellant. 6. The Honorable DRP and the learned

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

section 133(6) of the Act, which tantamount to choosing secret comparable companies whose information was not available in public domain while preparing the TP documentation for the relevant financial year. 4.6. Disregarding certain filters applied by the Appellant in selection of the comparable companies at the time of TP documentation. 4.7. Applying/ modifying the following filters while undertaking comparability

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

6. Ground No.2 - Disallowance of Subscription charges paid to Forrester Research Inc., USA. 6.1 This ground is raised by the assessee in respect of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act of subscription charges amounting to 7 IT(TP)A Nos.102 & 233/Bang/2013 Infosys Limited Rs.2,15,26,941 paid to Forrester Research Inc., USA for non-deduction

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

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Section 133(6) of the Act to confirm the details in the proceedings. Accordingly, we restore this comparable to the file of the TPO/A.O. for examination and verification of facts. (ii) Evoke Technologies Limited – has margin of 0.53%. The LdAr submitted that the company is functionally comparable and passes all the TPO’s filters. The branch

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

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

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

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

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

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

EVALUATIONZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any reason to uphold the orders of the learned lower authorities confirming the disallowance of Rs

ITA 1103/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69C

Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 36,55,489 under section 69C 2.1. The learned AO and the CIT(A), NFAC have erred in making addition of Rs. 36,55,489 under section 69C in respect of expenditure paid to M/s Techprocode Informat Technology Pvt. Ltd only for the reason that the notice under section 133(6

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

ITA 1206/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234B

disallowances u/s.10A and of the set –off of unabsorbed depreciation were incorporated. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is on appeal with the following grounds: IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 5 10. That the learned Assessing Officer and the learned Panel erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 6

SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 981/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: S/ShriKanchun Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Ch.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 80JSection 92C

disallowed the claim placing reliance on the provisions of sub-section (7A) of section 10A of the Act. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the claim came to be allowed after placing reliance on CBDT circular No.1 of 2013 IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 51 dated 17/01/2013 wherein it was clarified that the benefit u/s 10A will

DCIT vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1070/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: S/ShriKanchun Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Ch.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 80JSection 92C

disallowed the claim placing reliance on the provisions of sub-section (7A) of section 10A of the Act. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the claim came to be allowed after placing reliance on CBDT circular No.1 of 2013 IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 51 dated 17/01/2013 wherein it was clarified that the benefit u/s 10A will