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

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

6(1) of the Income Tax\nAct, have an obligation to pay taxes in India on the allowances received by\nthem in India. The seconder, being the real employer, have the obligation to\ndeduct tax u/s 192. This is being discharged by Assessee on behalf of the\nseconder as an administrative convenience.\n22.3 There is no deduction

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

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

6(1) of the Income Tax\nAct, have an obligation to pay taxes in India on the allowances received by\nthem in India. The seconder, being the real employer, have the obligation to\ndeduct tax u/s 192. This is being discharged by Assessee on behalf of the\nseconder as an administrative convenience.\n\n22.3 There is no deduction

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, any amount otherwise than by way of advance tax, specified as payable in a notice of demand u/s.156 shall be paid within thirty days

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

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

6(1) of the Income Tax\nAct, have an obligation to pay taxes in India on the allowances received by\nthem in India. The seconder, being the real employer, have the obligation to\ndeduct tax u/s 192. This is being discharged by Assessee on behalf of the\nseconder as an administrative convenience.\n\n22.3 There is no deduction

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

6. In fact coordinate bench under similar circumstances had examined the effect of omission of sub-section (9) to Section 10B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2004 by Finance Act, 2003 and held that there was no saving clause or provision introduced by way of amendment by omitting sub-section (9) of Section 10B. In the matter of GENERAL FINANCE

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS has not been paid in respect of interest expense of Rs. 67,04,528 and hence 30% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 is to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii), it was stated that the disallowance

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS has not been paid in respect of interest expense of Rs. 67,04,528 and hence 30% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 is to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii), it was stated that the disallowance

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

6 of 13 Chapter XVII-B. It is also proposed to provide that where in respect of payment of any sum, tax has been deducted under Chapter XVII-B or paid in any subsequent year, the sum of payment shall be allowed in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. The proposed amendment

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37 of the Income-tax Act would be relevant. The said provision reads as follows: "SECTION 37 GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes

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

TDS Return under Section 234E of the Act for the FY 2012-13 is not sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (2016) 73 taxman.com 252 (Kar). It was further submitted that the assessee was never served the intimation passed

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