“withholding tax”

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

Installation charges as specified in the order form are also payable initially. The payment to BTA is net of any Indian taxes, including withholding taxes, as may be applicable. There was no equipment of BTA at the Dell India’s premises and Dell India has no rights over any equipment

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

Installation charges as specified in the order form are also payable initially. The payment to BTA is net of any Indian taxes, including withholding taxes, as may be applicable. There was no equipment of BTA at the Dell India’s premises and Dell India has no rights over any equipment

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.301/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Plot No.21 Bidadi Industrial Area, Circle –2, Ltu, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-562 109. Pan : Aabct 5590 Q Appellant Respondent

failed to appreciate the 19. fact that the abolishment of DDT by the Government vide Finance Act, 2020 and re-introduction of withholding taxes on dividend, further confirms the intent of the Government that dividend was always taxable in the hands of the recipient. The learned ... tax covered within the ambit or the South Africa-Germany Tax Treaty. Article 7 of the South Africa-Germany provided for a withholding tax IT(TP)A No.301/Bang/2021 Page 11 of 12 rate of 7.5 % under the Dividend Articles whereas the STC was levied at 12.5%. The High Court held

Cerner Healthcare Solution India Private Limited(Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited) ( Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

same to the assessee at cost basis. The assessee submitted that salary payments to a non-resident is excluded from the ambit of withholding tax provisions u/s. 195 relating to nonresidents as it is covered separately under provisions for withholding taxes on salary u/s. 192. The assessee further submitted that ... case and consequently, we hold that where the assessee had reimbursed the expenses having no income element, there is no requirement to withhold tax out of such payments. The case of Revenue in this regard is that it is not case of reimbursement but is a case of payment

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

Agreement placed at Page No. 575 of the Factual Paper book). Accordingly, the subject payments by the Company should not attract withholding tax provisions under Section 195 of the Act in absence of element of income embedded therein. 8.2 The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Assessing Officer

Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

194C of the Act 1. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AD have grossly erred in stating that CAM charges are subject to withholding tax at 10% u/s. 1941 of the Act as against 2% u/s. 194C of the Act. 2. The Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Private Limited'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard on the applicability of withholding taxes on such provisions made which is against the principles of natural justice. b. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that TDS was not applicable

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Pvt Ltd'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard on the applicability of withholding taxes on such provisions made which is against the principles of natural justice. b. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that TDS was not applicable

Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

194C of the Act 5. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AD have grossly erred in stating that CAM charges are subject to withholding tax at 10% u/s. 1941 of the Act as against 2% u/s. 194C of the Act. ITA No.400-405/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 16 6. The Learned

M/S Belgacom International Carrier Services Sa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) International Taxation, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

under section 234C of the IT Act in the case of the Appellant, as according to the Revenue Authorities. the paver was liable to withhold tax on the sums paid to the Appellant. 11. Without prejudice, the lower authorities erred in computing the interest leviable under section 234A. 234B ... applicable in the respective area of operation (i.e. India for Hutch and Belgium for BICS). However, the service taker will bear any taxes (except withholding tax) levied in its own country of residence and if any, possibly gross-up the fee to be paid to the service provider, to guarantee

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

nature and not 'penal' and hence the allowable as a business expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. Non-deduction of withholding tax on year-end accrual in the case of legal and professional fees - INR 24,74,692. a)Provision for payment to auditors ... estimate basis. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not taking into cognizance the submissions made by the appellant wherein the details of withholding taxes deducted on the said provisions was submitted. b) Paid to 'Interactive Solutions' and 'VK Associates' - INR 3,08,000 2.4 The learned

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

nature and not 'penal' and hence the allowable as a business expenditure under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. Non-deduction of withholding tax on year-end accrual in the case of legal and professional fees - INR 24,74,692. a)Provision for payment to auditors ... estimate basis. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not taking into cognizance the submissions made by the appellant wherein the details of withholding taxes deducted on the said provisions was submitted. b) Paid to 'Interactive Solutions' and 'VK Associates' - INR 3,08,000 2.4 The learned