“non-resident”

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

Assessee to it’s AE was an “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

domestic tax law, viz., Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), as an anti-tax avoidance provision to restrict deduction of interest paid to non-resident associated enterprises (AEs). As already stated, the said provisions are applicable only when interest is paid to non-resident associated enterprises and such a feature

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

domestic tax law, viz., Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), as an anti-tax avoidance provision to restrict deduction of interest paid to non-resident associated enterprises (AEs). As already stated, the said provisions are applicable only when interest is paid to non-resident associated enterprises and such a feature

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

with respect to debentures and the rate of interest and particulars of conversion thereof. The DRP also made a reference to investment by a non-resident in an Indian Company, in any form, which is regulated by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer ... Resident outside India) Regulations, 2017 (FEMA Regulations'). The regulations prescribe the manner, limit, period, etc. of such investments. In other words, investment by a non-resident in a manner not prescribed, or in excess of the limits, etc. cannot be made in an Indian Company. Regulation 2(xviii) defines 'Foreign

Anuradha Chivukula Challa, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Range-1, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “7. The submissions of the assessee are considered. The assessee is a non-resident and has sold two properties during FY 2016-17. The property registrations were conducted on 26.12.2016 when the assessee was available in India. The assessee

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Cirlce- 12(3), Bangalore

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

held that for Section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act to be applicable, it is necessary that services provided by a non-resident assessee under a contract should not only be utilized within India, but should also be rendered in India or should have such a live link with India ... Article 12 of DTAA becomes taxable in India. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that whatever is payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for technical services would not always come within purview of section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act but it must

M/S Subex Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

held that for Section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act to be applicable, it is necessary that services provided by a non-resident assessee under a contract should not only be utilized within India, but should also be rendered in India or should have such a live link with India ... Article 12 of DTAA becomes taxable in India. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that whatever is payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for technical services would not always come within purview of section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act but it must

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

non- resident viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,) IT(IT)A No.989/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 18 hereinafter referred to as the ‘non-resident’. The non-resident was a tax resident of Hongkong. It is body corporate registered in Hongkong. It is undisputed that there was no Treaty for avoidance ... India and Hongkong during the relevant period i.e., period relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16. The nature of payment made by the assessee to non-resident was fee, training for developing soft skills. The amount payable to non-resident was grossed up and Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was paid

Think and Learn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Think & Learn Private Limited, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, 4/1, 6Th Floor, Tower D, Ibc Bengaluru. Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Opposite Fire Station, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan : Aaect 0931 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The Principal Cit – 3 (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Online Learning Platform In The Name Of “Byju” For Kindergarten To 12Th Standard Students & Other Related Services. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Page 2 Of 10

Rs.1,24,43,868/- (c) Capitalisation of expenses of Rs.2,97,03,171/- (d) Disallowance of commission paid to non-resident u/s 40(a)(i) of Rs.30,48,95,804/- (e) Disallowance of pact made to Facebook, Ireland Limited u/s 40(a)(i) of Rs.3 ... seen from the above additions made that a sum of Rs.30,48,95,804/- being commission paid to non-resident was disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The breakup of sum of Rs.30,48,95,804/- is as follows: 1. More Ideas General Trading

M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Ld.AO held that, as per section 5(2), the total income of the previous year earned by the assessee who is a non-resident includes all income from whatsoever sources that is derived which is:  Received or deemed to be received in India or  Accrues or arises or is deemed ... addition in the hands of the assessee as proposed by the Ld.AO in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, the non-resident assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the subscription fee received by the assessee from Indian customer for providing