M/S ATLAS BRANDS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS-CPC) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 13 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Ms. Beena Pillai

TDS returns. He submitted that against these demands raised by the AO u/s. 234E, assessee has not filed any appeal before CIT(A) but has filed revision petition before learned CIT u/s. 264 of IT Act on 09.01.2019 and the same are still pending before CIT. He submitted that later on, the AO initiated proceedings

M/S ATLAS BRANDS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS-CPC) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 13 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Ms. Beena Pillai

TDS returns. He submitted that against these demands raised by the AO u/s. 234E, assessee has not filed any appeal before CIT(A) but has filed revision petition before learned CIT u/s. 264 of IT Act on 09.01.2019 and the same are still pending before CIT. He submitted that later on, the AO initiated proceedings

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.\n29. Therefore it should be clear that once the income falls in the category\ndescribed under 9(1)(vii) irrespective of the fact whether the amount paid by\nAMAT India is equal to the cost incurred by the SECONDER or not. These\nquestions are irrelevant for deciding the taxability of the income from Fees\nfor Technical Services.\nTaxation under

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S KBR INFRATECH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

TDS, etc., 05. The Ld. AR submitted that consequent to the order u/s.201 /201(1A), the AO sent the demand notice dt 30.7.2013 u/s.156 in Form no.7 . Under sub-section (1) of Section 220

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

section 10AA of the Act. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Ground nos. 41 & 42 - Reduction of deduction under section 10AA in respect of pure onsite revenue 16.1 It was submitted that a software development project typically goes through the stages of requirement analysis, prototyping, design, pilots, programming, testing and installation and maintenance. A software

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

220 [Rs. 14,78,000Rs. 14,780(TDS)]. 3.3 In the IT return, the appellant offered Rs. 4,78,000/- being excess of gross maturity proceeds of Rs. 14,78,000/- over the sum assured amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Ideally, the appellant should have offered income of Rs. 4,15,250/- being excess of maturity proceeds of Rs.14

M/S DYNASCAN INSPECTION SYSTEMS COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

220 (2) of the Act, is concerned, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) held it to be prospective in nature. Respectfully following the same we quash and set-aside notice dated 25-01-2018 issued under section 200A for ITA No.3118(B)/2018 4 payment of late fee under section 234E for quarter two, to be without jurisdiction and authority

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.\n\n29. Therefore it should be clear that once the income falls in the category\ndescribed under 9(1)(vii) irrespective of the fact whether the amount paid by\nAMAT India is equal to the cost incurred by the SECONDER or not. These\nquestions are irrelevant for deciding the taxability of the income from Fees\nfor Technical Services

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.\n\n29. Therefore it should be clear that once the income falls in the category\ndescribed under 9(1)(vii) irrespective of the fact whether the amount paid by\nAMAT India is equal to the cost incurred by the SECONDER or not. These\nquestions are irrelevant for deciding the taxability of the income from Fees\nfor Technical Services

GEETHA PUNDALEEKA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS along with a penal interest under section 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized

M K AHMED SUPER MARKET ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

220(2) of the Act was sustained. 3. Against the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee moved the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee contended that no intimation under Section 200A of the Act was ever served on the assessee and the only communication which was received by the assessee

M/S. DECCAN CHARTERS (P) LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS to the tune of Rs. 76,92,033/- for F.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 1,36,43,263/- for F.Y. 2012-13. On such failure, the AO passed, orders u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on 07.10.2013 treating the appellant as assessee in default. It did not file any appeal against the orders

M/S. DECCAN CHARTERS (P) LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS to the tune of Rs. 76,92,033/- for F.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 1,36,43,263/- for F.Y. 2012-13. On such failure, the AO passed, orders u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on 07.10.2013 treating the appellant as assessee in default. It did not file any appeal against the orders

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC.,,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as India-US DTAA and the Indian entity was treated as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS. Since, Steer America Inc., USA had not filed ITR in India, there was an IT(IT)A Nos.832 & 833/Bang/2024 Steer America Inc., Bangalore Page 13 of 37 escapement of income

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC., ,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as India-US DTAA and the Indian entity was treated as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS. Since, Steer America Inc., USA had not filed ITR in India, there was an IT(IT)A Nos.832 & 833/Bang/2024 Steer America Inc., Bangalore Page 13 of 37 escapement of income

M/S JAS TELECOM PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-16 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 272A(2)(k) were thus imposed by Ld.AO for years under consideration as under : Periodicity TDS Amount Form Num Delay (Days) Penalty Amount

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

TDS u/s 195 of the I.T.Act (refer grounds 2.9 to 2.15). We are of the view that these grounds need not be adjudicated, since, on perusal of the final assessment, it is clear that the disallowance of ESOP expenses has made under the provisions of section 37 of the I.T.Act (though there was some discussion in the draft assessment order

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 195 of the Act on the reimbursement to the Ultimate Holding Company thereby resulting in double taxation of same amount. 2.15. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by contradicting his own statement by stating that in one hand there is an element of income included in the reimbursement made to the Ultimate Holding