M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS under section 194I of the Act. In that case, the Tribunal has categorically observed that Airlines Operator i.e., Jet Airways

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS under section 194I of the Act. In that case, the Tribunal has categorically observed that Airlines Operator i.e., Jet Airways

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS under section 194I of the Act. In that case, the Tribunal has categorically observed that Airlines Operator i.e., Jet Airways

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 under section 194IA. 3.32 The learned AR submitted that an important characteristic of ‘consideration’ is that the same belongs to the transferor / seller (land owner in the present case). A recipient of consideration is not obliged to repay the same. The amount of consideration can be appropriated by the recipient. The said characteristic is however not associated with

M/S. SRI BALAJI PRASANNA TRAVELS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

section 194I were applicable in the appellant’s case. However, as the appellant had not deducted TDS on payments above

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

194I, 194J – relevant sections under which TDS was required to be deducted by the assessee. These factors necessarily requires to be addressed

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS provisions, no disallowance can be made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hon’ble court held as under: “2. The reasoning appearing at paragraph 6 of the judgment and/or order challenge reads as follows. "In the present case before us the assessee has deducted tax under Section 194C(2) of the Act being payments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

section 194I(a). Before CIT(A) assessee submitted that assessee has received an amount of Rs 12,52,387 annual rent from payee and if any separate addition of Rs 4,75,590/- would be made because of the wrong mentioning of the provisions of TDS

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

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

TDS provisions under section 192, 194I, 194C and 194J of the Act was to be held as “an assessee in default

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

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

TDS provisions under section 192, 194I, 194C and 194J of the Act was to be held as “an assessee in default

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

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

TDS provisions under section 192, 194I, 194C and 194J of the Act was to be held as “an assessee in default

LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS rates at 10% u/s. 194I of the Act instead of 2% u/s. 194C of the Act. For the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 the assessee is also contending that the order passed by the assessing officer (AO) is time barred u/s. 201(3) of the income tax Act 1961 (the Act). The grounds raised by the assessee

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

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

TDS is to be done. 4. The provision so created by the Assessee in the books of accounts for the various assessment years are as follows:- F.Y. 2005-06 Particulars Amount Section Percentage Amt to be Interest deducted Sub-contracting 196063727 194C 1.13% 210250 1766116 charges Commission 23787112 194H 5.65% 1343971 1128936 Professional 24241731 194J 5.65% 1369657 1150512 charges Contractors

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

TDS is to be done. 4. The provision so created by the Assessee in the books of accounts for the various assessment years are as follows:- F.Y. 2005-06 Particulars Amount Section Percentage Amt to be Interest deducted Sub-contracting 196063727 194C 1.13% 210250 1766116 charges Commission 23787112 194H 5.65% 1343971 1128936 Professional 24241731 194J 5.65% 1369657 1150512 charges Contractors

LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

194I of the Act instead of 2% u/s. 194C of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced below. I. Characterisation of common area maintenance charges ["CAM charges"] as rent and applying TDS rate at 10% u/s. 1941 of the Act instead of 2% u/s. 194C of the Act 1. The Learned CIT(A) and Learned AD have

MAHEBOOB,WADI, TQ CHITTAPUR, DIST KALAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

TDS under section 194I of the Act. However, the entire amount received from ACC limited is included in the turnover

M/S. VOLVO GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VOLVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

TDS provisions does not apply in terms of section 194C(6) of the Act. 11. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of interest of Rs.66,28,329 under section 201(1A) of the Act, in respect of tax allegedly deductible but not deducted and delayed remittance of tax by the appellant

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

Section 194I(b) [valid from 25/06/2019 to 21/03/2020]. These certificates were issued by the TDS Circle 1(1), Bangalore and not by a third