DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

127 Taxman 168/264 ITR 506 and it was held to be binding on the Departmental authorities. Accordingly, it has been explained that in view of the Circular of CBDT dated 17.05.1978 (supra), which specifically provides that no TDS is required to be made in respect of payment of stake money, the Assessing Officer is not right in treating the assessee

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

127 taxmann.com 59 (Karnataka) Held against the assessee in assessee’s own Disallowance of Sub Contracting case by ITAT Bangalore in IT(IT)A No charges paid to Infosys Technologies 4/Bang/2014 & 1182/Bang/2014 11.4.2022 44 & 45 China Co Ltd under section 40(a)(i) for ITAT C Bench for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 not deducting tax at source under

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S MOONFROG LABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment.” 5.3 It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has analysed the provisions of Copy right Act and their applicability to the payments made

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS was made, therefore, it was also disallowed as per section 40(a)(ia) 14. On appeal the CIT(A) after discussing in detail on many judgments did not accept the plea of the assessee and in case of Page 12 of 30 AMC expenses he observed that the first proviso of section 201(1) is not automatic , the onus

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC., ,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

127 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka), wherein held that Commission paid by assessee- company to its overseas Associated Enterprise (non-resident agent) for placing orders with manufacturers outside India would not be liable to TDS under section

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC.,,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

127 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka), wherein held that Commission paid by assessee- company to its overseas Associated Enterprise (non-resident agent) for placing orders with manufacturers outside India would not be liable to TDS under section

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

section 194C of the Act 7. Provision created for 19,51,22,127 2,88,784 There is no dispute raised by the 64-67 parties to whom assessing officer with respect to this payment was made on amount. receipt of Invoice in subsequent year after deduction of TDS

NICE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,USA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(2)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

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

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

127 of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.” 4. At the time of hearing, the additional grounds were not pressed and the same are dismissed as such

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS. 4. The Chartered Accountant sought for consent to file an appeal against the CIT(A) order in so far as it was against the appellant. The appellant informed the Chartered Accountant that it will place the agenda for discussion in the next board meeting. 5. The appellant submits that an order under section

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS. 4. The Chartered Accountant sought for consent to file an appeal against the CIT(A) order in so far as it was against the appellant. The appellant informed the Chartered Accountant that it will place the agenda for discussion in the next board meeting. 5. The appellant submits that an order under section

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS certificate on time "as such should be gracious to acknowledge its mistake and not agitate for what is not due to him" when the facts are quite to the contrary. 4. The appellant prays it may be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of this appeal.” (k) ITA No. 249/Bang/2018

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS certificate on time "as such should be gracious to acknowledge its mistake and not agitate for what is not due to him" when the facts are quite to the contrary. 4. The appellant prays it may be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of this appeal.” (k) ITA No. 249/Bang/2018

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS certificate on time "as such should be gracious to acknowledge its mistake and not agitate for what is not due to him" when the facts are quite to the contrary. 4. The appellant prays it may be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of this appeal.” (k) ITA No. 249/Bang/2018

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS certificate on time "as such should be gracious to acknowledge its mistake and not agitate for what is not due to him" when the facts are quite to the contrary. 4. The appellant prays it may be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of this appeal.” (k) ITA No. 249/Bang/2018

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS certificate on time "as such should be gracious to acknowledge its mistake and not agitate for what is not due to him" when the facts are quite to the contrary. 4. The appellant prays it may be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of this appeal.” (k) ITA No. 249/Bang/2018

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS certificate on time "as such should be gracious to acknowledge its mistake and not agitate for what is not due to him" when the facts are quite to the contrary. 4. The appellant prays it may be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of this appeal.” (k) ITA No. 249/Bang/2018