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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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

section 115JB of the Act with regard to the expenditure IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 29 of 34 incurred in earning exempted income u/s 14A of the Act. Further, he observed that while computing the book profit, an excess amount of Rs.1

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.

275,238/- should be deleted fully. Grounds on TP Adjustment in respect of ‘Royalty’ 5.1 The learned TPO has erred in: 5.2 Determining TP adjustment of Rs. 1,90,75,332/- under section 92CA in respect of the royalty on alleged usage of brand ‘SASKEN’ by the AEs. 5.3 Not appreciating that the AEs have not received any financial benefit

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

275 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that that the amendment to provisions of section 36 (1) (va) read with section 43B of the finance act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 is prospective in nature and would be applicable only from 1 April 2021 and hence not applicable from assessment year 2012 – 13 under consideration. 20. The learned departmental representative

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

275 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that that the amendment to provisions of section 36 (1) (va) read with section 43B of the finance act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 is prospective in nature and would be applicable only from 1 April 2021 and hence not applicable from assessment year 2012 – 13 under consideration. 20. The learned departmental representative

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

M/S DEEPAK CALES INDA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

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

275, wherein the High Court held that where huge funds were available without any interest liability with assessee and there was no evidence to hold that borrowed money was utilized for purposes ITA Nos. 1285 and 1286/Bang/2016 Page 8 of 12 of advance to its sister concerns, no disallowance of interest was warranted. We heard the rival submissions. We hold

M/S DEEPAK CALES INDA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

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

275, wherein the High Court held that where huge funds were available without any interest liability with assessee and there was no evidence to hold that borrowed money was utilized for purposes ITA Nos. 1285 and 1286/Bang/2016 Page 8 of 12 of advance to its sister concerns, no disallowance of interest was warranted. We heard the rival submissions. We hold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of interest under section 201(1A) by treating it to be penal in nature. 16.1 It is submitted that the interest under section 201(1A) is not penal but is compensatory. It also does not represent tax of the assessee as it pertains to the tax liability of a third party. Reliance is placed on Resolve Salvage & Fire India

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of interest under section 201(1A) by treating it to be penal in nature. 16.1 It is submitted that the interest under section 201(1A) is not penal but is compensatory. It also does not represent tax of the assessee as it pertains to the tax liability of a third party. Reliance is placed on Resolve Salvage & Fire India

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of interest under section 201(1A) by treating it to be penal in nature. 16.1 It is submitted that the interest under section 201(1A) is not penal but is compensatory. It also does not represent tax of the assessee as it pertains to the tax liability of a third party. Reliance is placed on Resolve Salvage & Fire India

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed income is covered by provision of clause(b) Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 17 of Section 271AAB

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

275 Crores which is many times more than the total investment of the assessee at Rs.910 Crores. Thus the Learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that when the assessee's own fund is more than sufficient to meet the requirement of the investment then no disallowance is called for on account of interest under Section