CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

144 of the Act dated 30.12.2017 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said impugned order i.e., on or before 30.12.2017. The appellant filed the appeal on 30.12.2017. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the fact that the appellant was not interested to pursue the appeal as no documentary evidences were produced in filing

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

TDS') to INR 18,74,81,464 vis-a-vis INR 19,36.50,171 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

144 of the act on 12/12/2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 2,20,00,000/. 10. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee is in appeal raising grounds stated here in above. 11. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the issue of notice under section 148 of the act by the jurisdictional assessing officer

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

GAURAV RAJAN GHOOTA,G-4, SAI KUTEER APARTMENTS, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(2), HMT BUILDING BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

144 read with section 147 and section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making a best judgment assessment. The Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire Page 2 of 4 gross salary and interest income and disallowed deductions and exemptions claimed in Form 16 on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished during assessment proceedings. 3. Aggrieved

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

144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 2. Reimbursement of expenses does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the Act and under the India-US Tax Treaty (DTAA) 2.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred

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 for professional services and technical services. Thus, he submitted, the payment made by the assessee not being in the nature of FTS, there is no liability to deduct tax at source. 12. Without prejudice, he submitted, even assuming that the payment made to foreign attorneys are in the nature of FTS, then also such payment are not chargeable

SRI. BEVAHALLI GANGAPPA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,,KOLAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

144 determining the income at Sri Bevahalli Gangappa Ramakrishnappa, Kolar Page 4 of 5 Rs.2,96,61,656/-. The AO held the return to be invalid as it was filed after the due date laid down in subsection 1 of section 139 and on that ground he also denied 80C, 80TTA and 80G deduction

RANGSONS SCHUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

TDS as per the provision made under section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, various notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response. Accordingly, show cause notice was also issued to the Page 2 of 7 assessee but there was no response. Final show cause notice also issue for which there was no reply from assessee’s side

KARNATAKA TYRE AGENCIES, ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3 , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

section 144 (best judgment assessment) of the Act and made the following disallowances: • Salary expenses: ₹96,790 • Club, vehicle, and computer expenses: ₹1,16,418 • Provision for taxation: ₹56,100 • Non-deduction of TDS

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS under\nsection 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees,\nin respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign\ncompanies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were\nconducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders\nunder section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/assessment\norder under section 143(3) of the Act were

M/S. YANTTI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,2012-13 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS on payments made to sub-contractors Rs.10,11,000 and assessed the total 3 income of Rs.97,73,505 and passed under Section 144

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS under\nsection 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees,\nin respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign\ncompanies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were\nconducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders\nunder section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/assessment\norder under section 143(3) of the Act were

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing officer, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

144. It is thus clear from the statutory provisions that the starting point of computing of income from business is the profit or loss as per the profit and loss account of the Assessee. The AO cannot disregard the profit or loss as disclosed in the profit and loss account, unless he invokes the provisions