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

33B Explanation In this section, "industrial undertaking" means any undertaking which is mainly engaged in………….. 28.8 A perusal of the above by the AO revealed that while the former restricts the applicability of the definition only to references made in section 10(15)(iv) of the Act, the latter restricts the meaning to the section. The definitions are not omnibus

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

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

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation: The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of sec-tion 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

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

33B; (b) if the business is acquired by the assessee by way of transfer from any other person or as a result of any business reorganisation; (c) unless the assessee furnishes along with the return of income the report of the accountant, as defined in the Explanation to section 288 giving such particulars in the report as may be prescribed

M/S. G CROP PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

disallowance of claim of expenses under the matching principle, meaning thereby, the A.O. did not examine income from house property declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. D.R. submitted that there is total lack of application of mind on the part of the A.O. and hence Ld. Principal CIT has rightly invoked revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, since

M/S METRICSTREAM INFOTECH(INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed U/s 43B on actual payment basis. Taking the same analogy, the expenditure not debited to Profit & Loss is not allowable as an expenditure. Further it is necessary to note that in the assessee's case, the claim made is on account of write off which is not in accordance with the accepted accounting principles or provisions

M/S. EYGBS (INDIA ) LLP (EARLIER KNOWN AS EYGBS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2342/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

disallow the deduction claimed u/s 10AA in respect of Voluntary Transfer pricing adjustment. 18. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld DRP was factually not correct in observing that the assessee did not furnish details of voluntary Transfer pricing adjustment. It has added the amount of voluntary TP adjustment

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

disallowance only up to the first day of April, 2001, and granting the benefit, of those provisions even in respect of units to which sections 10A and 10B is applicable. The Finance Act, 2003, amended this sub-section with retrospective effect from April 1, 2001, by lifting the embargo in the aforesaid clauses in respect of depreciation and business loss

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. . . . . . 10A. (4) For the purposes of [sub-section (1) and (1A)], the profits derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits of the bank account maintained

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24 Iifl Samasta Finance Limited 110/3, Lalbagh Main Road Krishnappa Layout Dcit Vs. Bangalore 560 027 Circle 3(1)(1) Bangalore Pan No :Aaacc4577H Appellant Respondent

disallow the entire claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA amounting to Rs.35,71,25,441/- without assigning any reason. On the other hand, while going through the order of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A), we find that his/her observations are self- contradictory. On the one hand he/she holds that the audit report in form 10DA was uploaded on the portal on 26/10/2023

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowing the said losses whereas in the present case, the losses related to the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 which were properly determined by the AO by considering the returns filed in time and therefore the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue erroneously as against the provisions of the Act. 11. We have also

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

33B; (b) if the business is acquired by the assessee by way of transfer from any other person or as a result of any business reorganisation; (c) unless the assessee furnishes along with the return of income the report of the accountant, as defined in the 719((TP)A2011 & ITA No.1211(B)/15 Explanation to section 288 giving such particulars

SHELL APPARELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2004-05

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB to the extent of Rs.5,03,414 and computing the total income of Rs.15,92,490 as against returned income of Rs.10,89,075. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IB to the extent of Rs.5,03,414. Page

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light