HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE 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.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

234C of the Act on the assessed income instead of considering the returned income thereby levying an excess interest of INR 31,47,067. 4 Penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act a) The NFAC has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. b) The NFAC failed to appreciate the that a mere difference

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-4 , BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS under section 195 and consequently not liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i). Levy of Interest under section 234B and 234C

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 258/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Eit Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy #39/40, Digital Park, Commissioner Of Electronic City Phase Income Tax, Ii, Circle – 2(1)(1), Hosur Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaacd4078L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 14/02/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred As "Drp" For Brevity) ("Ao", "Tpo" & "Drp"

section 234C. 7. Prayer:- The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential relief thereto. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant herein are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

234C of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the purchase of software and also on legal and professional fees. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in not appreciating that the sub leased rental income is taxable without any adjustment against the business expenditure of the STPI units of the assessee. 9. On the facts

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. NSL SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

234C and grant of interest under section 244A. The appellant would in great earnestness pray that the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal be pleased to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer to MAT income, with consequential relief in the ends of justice and equity for which act justice and fairness the appellant would as in duty be bound

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

234C of the Act and the interest having been levied is erroneous and same is to be deleted. 8. In view of the above and on the grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned orders passed be quashed or atleast the additions as made/confirmed be deleted, levy of taxes at special rates

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

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

DCIT vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.45,73,528 and tax paid after original assessment of Rs.1,71,00,320. The Department contends that the words “any amount” will not include the interest which accrued to the respondent for not refunding Rs.45,73,528 for 57 months. We see no merit in this argument. The interest component will partake of the character

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

TDS made in the form of Form 27A filed by the Appellant are not justified in disallowing Rs.69,11,858/- under section 40(a)(ia). 4. Without prejudice to the above, treating the differential value of VAT of Rs.2,10,250/- as income: 4.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to delete the addition wrongly made

M/S IMS HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2836/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14

TDS to the extent of Rs.861,102, which the appellant is eligible to claim for the AY 2013-14. 25. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon’ble DRP has erred in levying interest under section 234C

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C of the - - - 8 Act. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that pursuant to the MAP entered into between the competent authorities of India and Korea with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee, the transfer pricing issues contested in the respective grounds for the years under consideration as tabulated hereinabove, in the assessee’s appeal stands

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C of the - - - 8 Act. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that pursuant to the MAP entered into between the competent authorities of India and Korea with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee, the transfer pricing issues contested in the respective grounds for the years under consideration as tabulated hereinabove, in the assessee’s appeal stands

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C of the - - - 8 Act. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that pursuant to the MAP entered into between the competent authorities of India and Korea with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee, the transfer pricing issues contested in the respective grounds for the years under consideration as tabulated hereinabove, in the assessee’s appeal stands