DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

TDS payment on behalf of the seconder.\nThe seconded employees, being residents in India owing to their stay for\nmore than 182 days as per the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

TDS payment on behalf of the seconder.\nThe seconded employees, being residents in India owing to their stay for\nmore than 182 days as per the provisions of section

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 Certificates will not be issued to the non-residents. 4. The assessee filed an application before the CIT(Appeals) u/s. 248 of the Act for a declaration that payments made to non-residents were not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act and Double Page 4 of 13 Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) and consequently

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 & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS Certificates will not be issued to the non-residents. 4. The assessee filed an application before the CIT(Appeals) u/s. 248 of the Act for a declaration that payments made to non-residents were not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) and consequently no tax was deductible on the said

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 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

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD,RAMANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BANGALORE

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

section 201(1A) be deleted; d) interest levied for delayed remittance be deleted; e) demand of Rs. 76,10,879/- be cancelled. The appellant prays accordingly.” 3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that although so many grounds are raised but issue involved is only one as to whether the assessee can be considered as an assessee

IBM INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. I.T.O. (TDS), BANGALORE

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

section 194A. (emphasis supplied) 12. The Assessee therefore submitted that withholding tax provisions of the Act would not apply automatically on any expense being accounted. The obligation to withhold taxes arises only on the amount payable is exactly identified along with the payee to whom such amount is payable. 13. The AO did not accept the above submission

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

section 194A. (emphasis supplied) 12. The Assessee therefore submitted that withholding tax provisions of the Act would not apply automatically on any expense being accounted. The obligation to withhold taxes arises only on the amount payable is exactly identified along with the payee to whom such amount is payable. 13. The AO did not accept the above submission

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

TDS under section 195 of the Act on the amount aid to J&P Coats Ltd. Page 20 IT(IT)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 20. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 21. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that, the view taken by authorities below is based on the amendment

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

TDS under section 195 of the Act on the amount aid to J&P Coats Ltd. Page 20 IT(IT)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 20. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 21. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that, the view taken by authorities below is based on the amendment

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 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). 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated August 17, 2009 had filed additional TDS certificates, amounting to Rs 1,13,86,500 issued

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

section 194DA has been amended vide Finance Bill 2019 to provide that TDS on life insurance pay outs should be in respect of proceeds remaining payable after reduction of premium paid by the appellant during the subsistence of the policy. Further, relying on the above amendment, the appellant has stated that the legislature has admitted that maturity proceeds from

BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

182\nGrounds relating to legal validity of the order passed\nby the learned AO\n5. The Ld. AO have erred on the facts, in circumstances\nof the case and in law in not passing the final assessment\norder within the time limit as provided under Section 153 of\nthe Act i.e., the outer limit for passing of the final\nassessment

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA - BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

182 deposited by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The assessee is an Indian company and has made payments to non-resident entity viz., Cadence Design Systems (Ireland) deducting

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

182 deposited by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The assessee is an Indian company and has made payments to non-resident entity viz., Cadence Design Systems (Ireland) deducting

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA _ BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

182 deposited by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The assessee is an Indian company and has made payments to non-resident entity viz., Cadence Design Systems (Ireland) deducting

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

182 deposited by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. The assessee is an Indian company and has made payments to non-resident entity viz., Cadence Design Systems (Ireland) deducting