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 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

TDS credit AO to verify and allow Foreign tax credit of Rs. 96,55,80,804 includes an amount of Rs. 68,14,32,706 which is under dispute before the Australian Tax Authorities. As per section 155

DCIT vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be ITA Nos.1700

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

TDS provisions contained in Chapter XVII. 3.55 The term ‘income’ is defined in inclusive manner in section 2(24). It does not outline the attributes or characteristics of the term income. It only lists out categories of receipts that are to be regarded as income. The usage of the term “includes” in the definition of “income”, signifies that the term

DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. CICON ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. (Vice President), SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member)

section 20 to Sec 155 to facilitate allowing credit if TDS in the year of TDS made to avoid re-opening

SRINIVASAMURTHY KOLIHALLY YALAKAIAH,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee appeals in ITA Nos

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

TDS on 13.03.2019. Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee has filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Act with the CIT (Appeals). We found under provisions of Section 246(1)(c) of the Act, an order under Section 154 is appealable which is read as under : “ 246(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee ;aggrieved

SRINIVASAMURTHY KOLIHALLY YALAKAIAH,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee appeals in ITA Nos

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

TDS on 13.03.2019. Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee has filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Act with the CIT (Appeals). We found under provisions of Section 246(1)(c) of the Act, an order under Section 154 is appealable which is read as under : “ 246(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee ;aggrieved

SRINIVASAMURTHY KOLIHALLY YALAKAIAH,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee appeals in ITA Nos

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

TDS on 13.03.2019. Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee has filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Act with the CIT (Appeals). We found under provisions of Section 246(1)(c) of the Act, an order under Section 154 is appealable which is read as under : “ 246(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee ;aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

155(11A) of the Act to allow deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of export sales proceeds which were received subsequently. Since we have already held earlier in this order (supra) that those export sales proceeds which were realized within the specified time limit ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page

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:

155, 158BFA sub- section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes @or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting ITA.828/Bang/2014 Page - 8 forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessee) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

155) to uphold the order of the AO. However, ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to reduce the amount of tax on TDS on the amounts on which subsequently TDS was deducted. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in these cases (ITA No.1195/B/2014 & 474/B/2016

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) Page 4 of 9 of the Act. Once the payment in question is not treated as ETS or royalty then, the same being business income in the hands of the non-resident marketing agents is not chargeable to tax in India in the absence of PE. The CIT (Appeals) has allowed

M/S. OZONE URBAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Tds, No.30, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru North, Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecm 5394 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

section 194A of the Act require deduction of tax at source if the amount paid is “any income by way of interest” and therefore if the amount in the hands of the payee is interest, the provisions of TDS would apply. The CIT(A) further stated that the accounting treatment in the books of accounts of the assessee

M/S IDEB PROJECTS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ideb Projects Private Limited, 9Th& 10Th Floor, Delta The Income Tax Officer, Towers, Vs. Ward – 3 (1) (1), Sigma Soft Tech Park, Bangalore. Varthurkodi, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaaci5570N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri K.R. Narayana, Jcit (Dr)

155(14) does not provide for any fresh claim of TDS. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the section

VEDA MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2022-23

TDS is appearing in Form 26AS and the assessee has claimed as tax paid. Accordingly, he requested that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to reconcile the same. 4. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities. The learned DR also referred to section 155