022 ITR (Trib) 0259 (followed) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ray

23 ITR (Trib) 447Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#5086 most cited

What is 022 ITR (Trib) 0259 (followed) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ray authority for?

Payments for the purchase of software do not constitute royalty, therefore Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance for non-deduction of TDS is not applicable.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. · Section 40(a)(ia) · TDS · software purchase · royalty · depreciation disallowance

Judgments citing 022 ITR (Trib) 0259 (followed) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ray

ALTRAN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…. In our view, the issue raised by the Revenue in the ground of appeal is no longer res integra and has been considered and decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of SMS Demag Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 132 TTJ 498 and Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 23 ITR (Trib) 447 ITAT Mum. In Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), identical issue was considered and decided by the Mumbai Tribunal. Following were the relevant observations:- “The assessee purchased software, capitalised the payment to the computers account as the software came along with the hardware of computers and claimed depreciation. On the…

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2012/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 10Section 14ASection 40

…ot d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n a c c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue." Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of ro…

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)
Section 80J

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1660/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopalan Guruswamy, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd, 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 16 respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.' Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of s…

ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1488/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopalan Guruswamy, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd, 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 16 respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.' Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of s…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), , BANGALORE vs. M/S VMWARE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 322/Bang/2018 M/s. VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kalayani Magnum, Block – I, 3rd Floor, 2010-11 Income Tax, 165/2, Doraisanipalya, IIM Post, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560 076. (formerly the Deputy PAN : AACCV4573 E Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(5), Bangalore). 323/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2011-12 417/Bang/2018 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. VMware Software…

M/S VMWARE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 322/Bang/2018 M/s. VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kalayani Magnum, Block – I, 3rd Floor, 2010-11 Income Tax, 165/2, Doraisanipalya, IIM Post, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560 076. (formerly the Deputy PAN : AACCV4573 E Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(5), Bangalore). 323/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2011-12 417/Bang/2018 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. VMware Software…

VMWARE SOFTWARE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 322/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 322/Bang/2018 M/s. VMware Software India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Kalayani Magnum, Block – I, 3rd Floor, 2010-11 Income Tax, 165/2, Doraisanipalya, IIM Post, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560 076. (formerly the Deputy PAN : AACCV4573 E Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(5), Bangalore). 323/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2011-12 417/Bang/2018 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. VMware Software…

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE -2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, P.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 114/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 113/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 112/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

ACER INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 111/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

ACER INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 110/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 109/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

M/S ACER INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 108/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY

ITA 107/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.107 To 114/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2009-10 & 2009-10 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…not d o n e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e t a x a b l e o n ac c o u n t o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. DLF PROJECTS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, ITA Nos.4960/Del/2015 and 2595/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and ITA

ITA 5135/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dlf Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Dlf Projects Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DLF Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.CIT, 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. DLF Projects Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

DLF PROJECTS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, ITA Nos.4960/Del/2015 and 2595/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and ITA

ITA 4960/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dlf Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Dlf Projects Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, Clf City Phase-1, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 DLF Projects Ltd., Vs Addl.CIT, 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Range-1, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. DLF Projects Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon. Arjun Marg, CLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN: AACCD3093R (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Deptt. By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…o disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account o f a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd , 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, respectively. We uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.” Thus it is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal while deciding this issue has taken note of various decisions in favour of the assessee on the point that the payment for purchase of software does not fall in the definition of roy…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2