M/S. WIFI NETWORKS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

permanent establishment or fixed base. In such case the provisions of ITA Nos.2325/Bang/2016 1198/Bang/2017 Page 11 of 26 Article 7 or Article 14, as the case may be, shall apply. As the nature of services performed by these persons residing in Uganda, to whom the payments have been made are of personal nature, the Article 14 concerning 'independent personal services

M/S. JUNIPER NETWORKS INC,USA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

permanent establishment is not involved. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the fact situation of the case. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 4.2. Even in the case of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC,USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of SanDisk Ireland, and consequently, the income of SanDisk Ireland was deemed taxable in India. Assessments were accordingly made in the case of SanDisk Ireland for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2017-18. 12.13 The dispute in the case of SanDisk Ireland was brought before this Tribunal in the assessee's appeals bearing

SITE CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and disallowed TDS under Section 40(a)(i).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the payments

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS by relying on the DRP directions of AY 2016-17 despite accepting that the payment was reimbursement of expense. 21. The Ld CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in relying on the decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd V CIT and other cases, without appreciating that the facts of those cases are different from

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS by relying on the DRP directions of AY 2016-17 despite accepting that the payment was reimbursement of expense. 21. The Ld CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in relying on the decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd V CIT and other cases, without appreciating that the facts of those cases are different from

M/S WIFI NETWORKS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-17(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Wifi Networks P Ltd., The Deputy No. 427, 80 Feet Circular Commissioner Of Road, Vs. Income Tax, 6Th Block, Koramangala, Circle 7 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560 095. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw5293L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. Cit (Dr)

permanent establishment located in India. 2.4 The learned assessing officer and CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure that were payable on the date of 31st march of every year. 2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, disallowance of payments

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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE 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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. 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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

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

TDS, for which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Google Ireland did not have any business connection or permanent establishment

ABB FZ-LLC,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) in India the receipts are not taxable in India. The Assessing Officer was of the view that when the DTAA is silent then the provisions of the Income Tax Act has to be considered and applied in respect of the income in question. Since the term ‘FTS’ appears has not 4 IT(IT)A No.188/Bang/2016 been defined

ANZ OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

permanent establishment is required for making payment in India. There is also no dispute that if the payments made by the respondent are held to be royalty and not 'Income from Business', there is an obligation on the part of the payee, the respondent herein to deduct the tax at source and in default, the respondent herein would be considered

JUBILANT BIOSYS LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

permanent establishment is required for making payment in India. There is also no dispute that if the payments made by the respondent are held to be royalty and not 'Income from Business', there is an obligation on the part of the payee, the respondent herein to deduct the tax at source and in default, the respondent herein would be considered

JUBILANT BIOSYS LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

permanent establishment is required for making payment in India. There is also no dispute that if the payments made by the respondent are held to be royalty and not 'Income from Business', there is an obligation on the part of the payee, the respondent herein to deduct the tax at source and in default, the respondent herein would be considered