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

184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned

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

184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned

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

184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned

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

184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed. Contentions before the ITAT: 3.6 There is no splitting up or reconstruction of business. The following factual aspects demonstrate the independence of SEZ Unit S11: 3.7 Physical location: The EOU unit 1 was situated at 20th KM, Hosur Road whereas the SEZ unit — S 11 is situated at Biocon SEZ, Bommasandra - Jigani Link Road, Bangalore. These two units

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP has erred in adding unrealized Mark to Market (“MTM”) gains amounting to INR 17,388,000,on forward foreign exchange contracts to the income of the appellant, although the same reflects a decrease in the business income due to a change in the accounting

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

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

5. The learned AO / learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in arbitrarily arriving at the arm's length commission rate at 3% while computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating that the corporate guarantees should be construed as passive support rendered by the Appellant

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

section 28 of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld.Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.T.A Quereshi vs CIT (supra). OR; ii. To treat it as expenditure in the hands of assessee under section 37 of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that Explanation 2 to section 37 is not applicable

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

section 199 read with rule ITA No.1245 & 1252/Bang/2015 Page 17 of 70 37BA(3)(i) of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in ground No. 2 of the appeal, hence dismissed. 17. Ground Nos. 3 – 5 of the appeal is against the deletion of the addition of ₹ 1038, 88, 98,234/– made