“non-resident”

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

learned CIT(A) has erred in facts, in contending that no documentary evidences were produced in relation to the services provided by non-resident partnership firms, without appreciating the fact that sample invoices were duly submitted. The learned CIT(A) further erred in contending that no service agreement and other ... Page 22 of 42 7.3 The assessee also contended the income has not accrued in India in the hands of these recipients. Further, these non-resident concerns do not have permanent establishment (PE) in India as such provisions of Section 9 of the Act were not attracted. However

M/S. Volvo Group India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Volvo India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD) Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

Rent - 194I - Rs. 2,02,94,286 Professional charges 194J - Rs.31,48,42,587 Commission - 194H - Rs. 2,40,16,353 Payments to non-residents – 195 Rs. 36,83,938 Page 4 of 31 3. The aforesaid sum was duly disallowed by the assessee u/s.40(a)(ia) in the return ... assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from the “yearend provisions” (b) The Provision for expenses included the commission expenses payable to non-resident commission agents and they are not liable to tax in India in their hands. Hence the provisions of sec.195 are not applicable. Page

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Form 3CEB for AY 2009-10. B. Redemption of capital gains translate to a transfer chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’ and thus the non-resident is exigible to tax. C. Section 93 is applicable to the facts of the case and hence income is deemed to be income

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Form 3CEB for AY 2009-10. B. Redemption of capital gains translate to a transfer chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’ and thus the non-resident is exigible to tax. C. Section 93 is applicable to the facts of the case and hence income is deemed to be income

M/S. Course5 Intelligence Private Limited (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Course5 Intelligence Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Cross Tab Marketing Services The Deputy Pvt. Ltd.) Commissioner Of No. 422, 80 Feet Income Tax, Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), 6Th Block, Vs. Bangalore. Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabcc6525A Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 14/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Had Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner Passed By Him & The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Same. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

head office on foreign soil. It is not an autonomous body. The status of a branch would also be 'resident'. As no non-resident is involved, the impugned reallocation is not governed by TP provisions. The entire exercise of the learned AO is bad in law. 2.8 Such principles have

Vijay Kumar Konenki, Bengaluru vs. CIT Appeals -12, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Konenki Vijay Kumar, Vs. Cit(Appeals) - 12, No.47, 4Th Cross, 1St Main, Bengaluru. Brindavan Layout, Dr. Amc Road, Kavalbyrasandra, Bengaluru – 560 032. Pan : Afcpv 8596 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Reshma Marathi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

assessee against the order dated 12.11.2021 of CIT(A) - 12, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee is an individual (non-resident). He filed return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring ‘Nil’ income. He had during the relevant previous year deposited in his bank account ... residing in Bengaluru. The agricultural land is situated in Kurnool district and is also dry land in nature. The appellant is a non-resident staying in Germany. It would be farfetched to imagine that appellant living in Germany of his parents living in Bengaluru were able to cultivate any lands

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

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

non- ITA Nos.1511 & 1512/Bang/2013 Page 11 of 17 resident as it may not be administratively possible to recover the tax from the non-resident. 50.4 Applicability - This amendment has been made applicable with effect from 1st April, 2010 and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year ... part of the assessee in the present appeal to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act, relates to payment made to non-resident companies, in the financial years 2005-06 to 2007-08 relevant to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The provision contained under

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

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

non- ITA Nos.1511 & 1512/Bang/2013 Page 11 of 17 resident as it may not be administratively possible to recover the tax from the non-resident. 50.4 Applicability - This amendment has been made applicable with effect from 1st April, 2010 and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year ... part of the assessee in the present appeal to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act, relates to payment made to non-resident companies, in the financial years 2005-06 to 2007-08 relevant to the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The provision contained under

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Learned AO and the Learned Panel erred in ignoring that amount paid to overseas entities was not towards rendition of any service by any non-resident but represented salary cost incurred by the Appellant on which tax was deducted at source under section 192 of the Act and that mere ... seen in the assessee's case for FY 2014-15 that there were payments made by the assessee to Non-resident entity M/s Airbus SAS, France, (ASAS) without deducting TDS as per provisions of Sec. 195. On verification of 15 CA data for the Financial Year

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

applicable because that decision has been rendered in respect of section 9(1) (vii)(c) which is applicable in the case of non-residents where as clause (b) deals with residents. However, at the same time, common sense would tell us that training expenses cannot be called

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

applicable because that decision has been rendered in respect of section 9(1) (vii)(c) which is applicable in the case of non-residents where as clause (b) deals with residents. However, at the same time, common sense would tell us that training expenses cannot be called

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

Belgium applies two sets of thin capitalization rules. Firstly, a 1:1 debt/equity ratio applies to loans granted by individual directors, shareholders and non-resident corporate directors to their company [art. 198(10) IR/WIB]. Interest relating to debt in excess of this ratio is recharacterized into a non- deductible dividend ... Furthermore, the interest rate may not exceed the market rate. Secondly, a 7:1 debt/equity ratio applies to debt if the creditor (resident or non-resident) is exempt or taxed at a reduced rate in respect of the interest paid on the debt. Interest relating to debt in excess