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 liability in respect of 15 land owners who were paid security deposit in excess of Rs 50 lakhs. 3.8 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.9 The learned AR submitted that section 194IA has been inserted by the Finance Act 2013 with effect

THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,,MYSORE vs. ITO, MYSORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

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

TDS) and the Tribunal, by order dated 21/11/2014, after considering the provisions of sec.194A as well as 196 of the act, has come to the conclusion that payment of interest to KUIDFC is to be held to be as paid to the Government and section

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

196/- as PSF-(FC) through Airline Operators for which the assessee has raised the invoices on Airline Operators and Airline Operators were paying to the assessee after retaining the amount @ 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee on or before due date. The assessee has recognize the revenue from

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

196/- as PSF-(FC) through Airline Operators for which the assessee has raised the invoices on Airline Operators and Airline Operators were paying to the assessee after retaining the amount @ 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee on or before due date. The assessee has recognize the revenue from

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

196/- as PSF-(FC) through Airline Operators for which the assessee has raised the invoices on Airline Operators and Airline Operators were paying to the assessee after retaining the amount @ 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee on or before due date. The assessee has recognize the revenue from

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

196/- as PSF-(FC) through Airline Operators for which the assessee has raised the invoices on Airline Operators and Airline Operators were paying to the assessee after retaining the amount @ 2.5% of the invoice value on account of prompt payment by them to the assessee on or before due date. The assessee has recognize the revenue from

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS on ₹ 10,90,000/- under section 194J of the Act. The Ld.AO therefore disallowed ₹ 6 lakh under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.8 Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.9 The Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by granting relief in respect of the disallowance made towards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS on ₹ 10,90,000/- under section 194J of the Act. The Ld.AO therefore disallowed ₹ 6 lakh under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.8 Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.9 The Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by granting relief in respect of the disallowance made towards

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS on ₹ 10,90,000/- under section 194J of the Act. The Ld.AO therefore disallowed ₹ 6 lakh under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.8 Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.9 The Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by granting relief in respect of the disallowance made towards

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 201 and 201(1A) of the Act by issuing notice asking the assessee to show cause why it should not be treated as an assessee in default for not depositing the TDS in respect of payments made to various entities. The assessee submitted before the AO that it is heavily dependent on borrowings and due to slump

NICE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,USA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(2)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

196 (Kar) and CIT v. Page 4 of 10 Samsung Electronics, 345 ITR 494 (Kar) held that the income from sale of software as royalty both in terms of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and DTAA and brought the same to tax. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the action of the AO. Against this, the assessee

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

196 (Bangalore - Trib.) dt. 15.2.2017. 55. The CIT(A) further observed that the Bangalore ITAT in TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

196 (Bangalore - Trib.) dt. 15.2.2017. 55. The CIT(A) further observed that the Bangalore ITAT in TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S HERBAL LIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

196 (Bangalore - Trib.) dt. 15.2.2017. 55. The CIT(A) further observed that the Bangalore ITAT in TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

196 (Bangalore - Trib.) dt. 15.2.2017. 55. The CIT(A) further observed that the Bangalore ITAT in TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

196 Taxman 353 (Jharkhand) and ii. ABN Amro Bank vs. JCIT (2005) 96 TTJ Kol. 1041 The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 38 employee has to pay his personal income-tax and it cannot be held

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

196 Taxman 353 (Jharkhand) and ii. ABN Amro Bank vs. JCIT (2005) 96 TTJ Kol. 1041 The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 38 employee has to pay his personal income-tax and it cannot be held

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:-

Section 37(1) of the Act for the reason that the said expenditure was incurred for maintaining uniformity in the franchisee stores and the Assessee neither owns nor derives any enduring benefit on such expenditure. 37. The AO classified the expenditure as capital in nature for the reasons that (i) the Form 3CD filed for AY 2012-13 noted