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

194H, 1941, 194J — relevant Sections under which TDS was required to be deducted by the assessee. These factors necessarily requires

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

section 201(1) of the Act and failed the mandatory requirement to deduct TDS on this payment. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore, upheld the disallowance made by the Ld.AO. 13. At the time of hearing the instant appeals, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue may be remitted to the file of Ld.AO for verification

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

section 201(1) of the Act and failed the mandatory requirement to deduct TDS on this payment. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore, upheld the disallowance made by the Ld.AO. 13. At the time of hearing the instant appeals, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue may be remitted to the file of Ld.AO for verification

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 by invoking the provisions of section 194H on the commission paid to the pigmy agents. The Ld.AR placed reliance

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 by invoking the provisions of section 194H on the commission paid to the pigmy agents. The Ld.AR placed reliance

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

TDS is not applicable on such expenses. The Hon'ble DRP and learned AO has erred in upholding that the provisions of section 194H

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

section 194H of the Act. He should have deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act however it has been

SRI BALAJI PROMOTERS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2016-17

194H of the Act is Rs.26,46,859/- and TDS was deducted at Rs.2,64,686/- @ 10% which was offered as income in the ITR. There was TDS deducted under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

TDS as per the provisions contained in Section\n\n194A, 194H & 194J of the Act respectively. In the event of non compliance

MRS. LOBO CRYSTAL,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS provisions u/s. 194H. The assessee has got the books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB in this year for the first time. The ld. AR stated that the turnover of the assessee was below the taxable limit and therefore section

MRS. LOBO CRYSTAL,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS provisions u/s. 194H. The assessee has got the books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB in this year for the first time. The ld. AR stated that the turnover of the assessee was below the taxable limit and therefore section

THE MALNAD ARECANUT SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

TDS were made as under: Section Particulars Amount (Rs.) 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Interest 72,270/- (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) 194H

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

194H of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) held that the above said decision shall apply to the facts of the present case also. He further held that the AO did not specify the section under which the TDS

GINKLORU GANGAREDDY,RAMPURA VILLAGE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

194H Reliance Retail Limited 10,31,627 51,586 Total 26,54,109 1,24,183 3.2 The assessee had also furnished a ledger of commission sales without any reconciliation before the ld. AO. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. D.R. vehemently supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

194H and Explanation to said section is applicable to assessee-Bank and as such assessee ought to have deducted TDS

EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act is unwarranted. 7. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below and vehemently submitted that in the present case the nature of the expenses are identified, the parties are identified & the amount of expenditure are also fairly estimated then the question of non-deduction of TDS

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 440/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Rmz Pinnacle, No. 15, Income Tax, Commissariat Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 025. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Assessee By Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

194H of the act and therefore these expenses are purely in the nature of selling expenses and cannot be categorised as AMP as alleged by the revenue authorities. 3.5 The Ld.Counsel submitted that, the Ld.TPO considered 50% of the distributor allowances without appreciating that TDS has already been deducted on these payments and without appreciating that the fact that

SHANTHALA ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD - 3(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

TDS. 3. The assessee before the AO made a submission that the issue was covered by an order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Srinivas Rudrappa vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 702 & 703/Bang/2022 dated 02/12/2022. The AO had relied on the finding of the ITAT which was given in the context that who will refund

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU vs. UNITEDLEX INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS I-RUNWAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

section 194H of the Act could be applied only when the amount is credited to the agent account. (Our emphasis supplied) Based on the above discussions, the Assessee submitted that there was no requirement to deduct tax on provision for professional fee as at 31 March 2015 and therefore such provision ought not to be disallowed