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

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

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

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

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

u/s section 10A of the Act (iii) Disallowance of capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

10A of the Act. Being so, there is no question of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue. 8. Further, regarding the levy of penalty for claim of short term capital loss by invoking the provisions of section

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

u/s. 10A and was closed in the year 2007-08. It is submitted that STPI unit I & II is located in Bangalore. Whereas STPI Unit V & VI are located in Chennai. Further admittedly STPI Unit I & II performed ITeS services whereas STPI Unit V & VI are into SWD services. “Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

u/s. 10A and was closed in the year 2007-08. It is submitted that STPI unit I & II is located in Bangalore. Whereas STPI Unit V & VI are located in Chennai. Further admittedly STPI Unit I & II performed ITeS services whereas STPI Unit V & VI are into SWD services. “Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation

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

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Act. 11. Other grounds 11.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 409,68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S E-COSMOS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed by the Assessing Officer under the following facts. The assessee is a company, engaged in the business of computer software development. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 belatedly on 18.10.2010. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10A

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature to deal with the issue. 24 IT(T.P)A No.1105 & 1259/Bang/2012 Revenue’s Appeal 16. The Revenue has raised the following grounds : “1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the above grounds and also all relief consequential thereto. b) The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during

NDS LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P) A. No.1515/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Nds Limited – India Branch Office, Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax, No.9, Ashford Park View, (International Taxation), 80 Ft Road, Koramangala Iii Block, Circle 1 (1), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 034 Pan Aabcn 2524L Appellant Respondent.

u/s. 10A of the Act. 6.1 In these grounds the assessee challenges the action of the authorities below (i.e. the Assessing Officer and the DRP) in excluding expenses incurred in foreign currency amounting to Rs.2,76,83,096 from export turnover while computing the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. Without prejudice to its contention that the aforesaid sums

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

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

271 of the Act 11. 11.1 The learned AO has erred in issuing a penalty notice to the Company consequent to above adjustments. 11.2 The learned AO ought to have observed that all necessary information and evidence on the expenditure in question as called for by the AO were duly disclosed and there has been no culpable negligence or willful

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

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

u/s 10A f the Act 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fats in upholding the AO’s computation of relief under section 10A of the Act at Rs.742,562,786 (as against the amount of Rs.,348,027,117 claimed by the appellant in its return of income). Inter unit set off of losses

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15 Directions issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts in not a) taking cognizance of the objections filed by the Appellant in IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 7 relation to the draft assessment order/TP Order issued

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle