DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the sales and marketing commission paid by the appellant for the year under appeal is deleted.” 10. We further find that while dealing with the issue, the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to observe as follows while holding that the sales commission paid to the Manthan System

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the sales and marketing commission paid by the appellant for the year under appeal is deleted.” 10. We further find that while dealing with the issue, the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to observe as follows while holding that the sales commission paid to the Manthan System

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the sales and marketing commission paid by the appellant for the year under appeal is deleted.” 10. We further find that while dealing with the issue, the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to observe as follows while holding that the sales commission paid to the Manthan System

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed Rs. 9,06,788/- incurred by the assessee on the ground that this expenditure is not the expenditure of assessee company but that expenditure is of parent company and the benefit of such expenditure accrues to the parent company and not assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) found that the common

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

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

disallowance is warranted u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. We further notice that the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for 9. AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 (supra) 13. At the outset of the proceedings, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

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

disallowance is warranted u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. We further notice that the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for 9. AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 (supra) 13. At the outset of the proceedings, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE., BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

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

disallowance is warranted u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. We further notice that the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for 9. AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 (supra) 13. At the outset of the proceedings, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka

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.

disallowance with respect to expenditure on ESOP under section 37 of the Act — INR 7,29,00,000 2.1. The Learned AO and Honorable DRP have erred in law and on facts, in disallowing the expenditure on ESOP of INR 7,29,00,000 under section 37 of the Act without appreciating the submissions furnished by the Appellant

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act, the A.O. held that the assessee has not satisfied conditions specified u/s 37 of the I.T.Act for claiming such expenditure. The objections filed before the DRP was rejected and the DRP agreed by the conclusions drawn by the A.O. 18. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of ESOP expenses u/s 37 of the Act the Ld. A.R. submitted that the employees of the Appellant are eligible to participate/get the shares of the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (‘Ultimate Holding Company’) based on their eligibility, performance, and certain other parameters. 20.1 The shares granted to the employees of the Appellant are considered as a part of ‘perquisite

M/S NOVOZYMES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.894/Bang/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13

disallowed Rs. 9,06,788/- incurred by the assessee on the ground that this expenditure is not the expenditure of assessee company but that expenditure is of parent company and the benefit of such expenditure accrues to the parent company and not assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) found that the common

M/S NOVOZYMES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.894/Bang/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13

disallowed Rs. 9,06,788/- incurred by the assessee on the ground that this expenditure is not the expenditure of assessee company but that expenditure is of parent company and the benefit of such expenditure accrues to the parent company and not assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) found that the common

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

section 92B, with retrospective IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021 M/s. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 73 effect from 1.4.2002 and sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of this Explanation provides that: (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include— . . . . . (c) capital financing, including any type of longterm or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase

ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance u/s. 14A after excluding investments in Reliance Liquidity Fund – Growth option units being not capable of generating exempt income.” 2. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2017 dismissed the additional ground without giving any specific finding. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon’ble High Court in ITA No.762/2017 vide

DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. KING FISHER AIRLINES LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowing the addition of Rs.98, 30,499/-, thereby disregarding the payment does not fall in under the definition of Royalty as per Clause (iv) and (iva) of explanation 2 to Sec. 9(1) (vi) of the I.T. Act. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the usage charges of simulator are not covered under the definition

KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowing the addition of Rs.98, 30,499/-, thereby disregarding the payment does not fall in under the definition of Royalty as per Clause (iv) and (iva) of explanation 2 to Sec. 9(1) (vi) of the I.T. Act. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the usage charges of simulator are not covered under the definition

KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowing the addition of Rs.98, 30,499/-, thereby disregarding the payment does not fall in under the definition of Royalty as per Clause (iv) and (iva) of explanation 2 to Sec. 9(1) (vi) of the I.T. Act. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the usage charges of simulator are not covered under the definition

DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. KING FISHER AIRLINES LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

disallowing the addition of Rs.98, 30,499/-, thereby disregarding the payment does not fall in under the definition of Royalty as per Clause (iv) and (iva) of explanation 2 to Sec. 9(1) (vi) of the I.T. Act. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the usage charges of simulator are not covered under the definition