KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

TDS amounting to Rs.1,76,112 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n\n15. 2. The learned Assessing officer has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in computing the income under section 11 to 13 as per Explanation 3 to section 11 introduced by the Finance Act 2018 w.e.f

BANGALORE TRUF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS or otherwise as observed earlier. 12. Office to place the matter upon a note filed by either side declaring that the order is passed by the appropriate authority pursuant to show cause notice. 13. It is observed and directed that the appropriate authority shall independently consider the matter without being in any manner influenced by any observations made

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

13 and held that section 194B/194BB are not applicable to stake money. Respectfully following the same we also hold that stake money paid by assessee to the horse owners are not liable to TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section

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

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

13 and held that section 194B/194BB are not applicable to stake money. Respectfully following the same we also hold that stake money paid by assessee to the horse owners are not liable to TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 10A." Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has followed the earlier order for the Assessment Year 2004-05 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

8] It may be recorded that section 200(3) requiring to file formal TDS statement within the aforesaid each quarter was inserted on 1-4-2005 and at the relevant point of time, section 272A(2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

13, the assessee suo moto disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. Page 3 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 25.03.2014 deeming the assessee to be an assessee-in-default for non deduction of tax at source

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

13, the assessee suo moto disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. Page 3 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 25.03.2014 deeming the assessee to be an assessee-in-default for non deduction of tax at source

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

13, the assessee suo moto disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. Page 3 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 25.03.2014 deeming the assessee to be an assessee-in-default for non deduction of tax at source

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

13,79,307/- Interest on delay payment 4.71.297 Payable 75,97,716/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.ITO(TDS), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that the amount on which TDS has been computed by the Ld.ITO(TDS) includes such amount on which TDS has been deducted deposited with Government

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

13,79,307/- Interest on delay payment 4.71.297 Payable 75,97,716/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.ITO(TDS), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that the amount on which TDS has been computed by the Ld.ITO(TDS) includes such amount on which TDS has been deducted deposited with Government

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. M/S HOTHUR TRADERS 100% EOU, BELLARY

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in construing the expression "processing" allowed the appeal of the assessee, in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), holding, inter alia, that where any commodity is subjected to a process or treatment with a view to its "development or preparation for the market

M/S.METROPOLITAN MEDIA COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

13 to 16 which is read as under : 7 8 9 We found the co-ordinate Bench of tribunal in ITA No.183/Bang/2014 Dt.27.05.2016 in ITO (TDS) Vs. Confident Projects (India) Ltd. has considered the Circular No.5 of 2016 of CBDT and observed on non-applicability of 10 provisions of Section

DCIT vs. SASKEN NETWORK ENGG. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Sasken Network Engineering Limited, Of Income Tax, No.139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Circle - 12(3), 14/3, 4Th Floor, Rastrothana Ring Road, Domlur, Bhavan (Opp. Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaics 4405 Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Respondent By : Shri. C. Narayan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.01.2013 Of Cit(Appeals)-Iii, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which The Said Appeal By The Revenue Arises For Consideration Are The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Engaged Inter Alia In The Business Of Installation & Commissioning Services. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income ('Rol') Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act') On October 31, 2007 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs 3,05,04,940 On Which Taxes Of Rs 1,02,67,963 Were Payable. On Account Of Credit For Taxes Deducted At Source (Tds') Amounting To Rs 1,21,26,857 & Self Assessment Tax Amounting To Rs 1,60,0000 A Page 2 Of 9 Refund Of Rs 34,58,894 Was Claimed. The Rol Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Concluded Vide Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated December 17, 2009 Wherein Income Returned By The Assessee In The Rol Was Accepted By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3) (A0).

section 154 of the Act dated November 22,2010 before the AO requesting him to grant credit of TDS amounting to Rs.1,13,86,500/-. However, the AO rejected the rectification application vide an order dated July 26, 2012 on the ground that since the corresponding income of Rs.20,27,96,304/- corresponding to the tax deducted and deposited

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS thereon. We find that in the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07, the year under consideration, there was no liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194J of the Act in respect of software expenses paid to Indian entities as the term ‘royalty’ in Sec. 194J of the Act was introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

TDS under section 195A along with interest under section 244A of the Act. The CIT(A) rejected this stating that though the assessee is entitled to refund where it has paid more taxes than the due Page 6 of 13 amount required under section 195A, there is no provision under section 214 and 244A of the Act for interest

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

13. Turning to the decision of the Agra Bench of ITAT in Rajiv Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (supra ), the Court finds that it has undertaken a thorough analysis of the second proviso to Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act and also sought to explain the rationale behind its insertion. In particular, the Court would like to refer to para