BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

240 dated 19.05.1978, but it cannot be disputed that Section 194BB of the Act is the specific section which deals with TDS

DCIT vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

240 of the Act. Merely because this was inclusive of an amount which was payable under Section 214 of the Act, that would not make the position any different. It is an amount which became due to the assessee on the basis of the appellate order. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to interest in terms of Section

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 986/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(It)A No. 990/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Addl. Respondent By : Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

240 held that, deductee is entitled for interest on refund tax deposited under section 195. The Ld..AR placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.11/2016 allowing interest on refund under section 244A on excess TDS

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LINITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 986/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(It)A No. 990/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Addl. Respondent By : Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

240 held that, deductee is entitled for interest on refund tax deposited under section 195. The Ld..AR placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.11/2016 allowing interest on refund under section 244A on excess TDS

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Padmavathy S

240 held that, deductee is entitled for interest on refund tax deposited under section 195. The Ld.AR placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.11/2016 allowing interest on refund under section 244A on excess TDS

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

240 held that, deductee is entitled for interest on refund tax deposited under section 195. The Ld.AR placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.11/2016 Page 12 of 12 allowing interest on refund under section 244A on excess TDS

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Section\n147 of the Act, he cannot make such disallowances in respect of matters which\nhave reached finality in the original assessment and which arc not in the nature of\nany escapement of income within the meaning of Section 147. The learned Counsel\nfor assessee pointed out that the original assessment was made Under Section\n143(1) and thereafter

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40(a)(i) for software expenses - Rs. 24,723,240 a) The learned Assessing Officer (AO) and the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') have erred in disallowing software expense amounting to Rs. 24,723,240 for non- deduction of tax at source. b) The learned AO/DRP ought to have observed that on the said expense, no TDS

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

240% and 78% respectively, the number of customers increased to 37 and 42 respectively from 27. Likewise, the percentage of loss decreased from 209% in A.Y. 2016-17 to 20% and 7 % in A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. This proves that the loss in the first year was only due to initial set-up and competitive pricing pressures

SHIVA & SHIVA ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITAL PVT. LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD - 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.1262 1263(B)/2017 appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS) vs M/s.Teleradiology Solutions Pvt.Ltd, (supra). 3.4 Ld.AR submitted that alleged nine doctors filed their returns declaring remuneration received from assessee have been accepted by Ld.AO as professional fees. 4. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR referred to employment letter at page -56 and submitted that remuneration received by these doctors are in nature of salary. He referred to statement recorded

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

240 and Pr. CIT v. PTC Software (I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 117 (Bom.). In both the above decisions this Court has taken a view that merger/amalgamation is an extra ordinary event and would have an impact /effect on the financial results of the company. Thus, in both the aforesaid decisions, this Court upheld the view of the Tribunal

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 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

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

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only