DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of deprecation. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure and therefore, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not attracted on such deduction. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of deprecation. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure and therefore, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not attracted on such deduction. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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. 45,73,523 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

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

B & C 635, wherein it has been observed as under (page 384): ‘To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined.’ 5.4 Law prohibits to do something indirectly which is prohibited

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

B & C 635, wherein it has been observed as under (page 384): ‘To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined.’ 5.4 Law prohibits to do something indirectly which is prohibited

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

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

B. Another issue on which assesse sought declaration from the LdCIT(A) that tax deducted at higher rate under section 206AA was not applicable, when the payments were made to non-resident in the absence of permanent account number. B.1. On this, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that, as per section 248, section 206AA was not applicable in case of payments

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

B. Another issue on which assesse sought declaration from the LdCIT(A) that tax deducted at higher rate under section 206AA was not applicable, when the payments were made to non-resident in the absence of permanent account number. B.1. On this, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that, as per section 248, section 206AA was not applicable in case of payments

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

TDS made u/s 194IA amounting to Rs.42,720/- along with interest u/s 244A thereon. During the financial year 2016-17 relevant for the Asst. year 2017- 18, the assessee along with his son Sri M. Sumanth had jointly sold an immovable property vide sale deed registered as document No.1401/2016-17 on 30.6.2016 for a total sale consideration of Rs.85

SOLUTIONS INFINI TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2023-24

b) and Audit Report reported under clause 21(e) considering Filed gratuity as unapproved fund 27.05.2024 Return processed CPC made disallowance of Rs. 1,95,26,186 on under section account of inconsistency between TAR and 143(1) ROI 27.09.2024 Further revised Amount removed from clause 21(e) as well, Tax Audit Report clarifying that no provision for gratuity existed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

B R, CA Revenue by : Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 04-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11-02-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 27/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2021-22 and raised the following grounds: “1. The Order

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

B”BENCH: BANGALORE\n\nBEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\nITA Nos.2557 & 2558/Bang/2024\n Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20\n\nMr. Vikram Dhondu Rao\nVilla 112, Adarsh Plam Retreat\nOuter Ring Road\nBellandur Post\nDevarabeesanahalli\nBangalore 560 037\nPAN NO :AANPR3719C\nAPPELLANT\n\nVs.\n\nDCIT\nCircle-4(1)(1)\nBangalore\nRESPONDENT

MICROLAND LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

TDS credit only to the extent of Rs. 11,32,65,988/- as against the claim of Rs. 11,32,89,994/-. 13. The Learned authorities below erred in not correctly quantifying the period for which the appellant is eligible for interest u/s 244A of the Act. 14. For the above and other grounds/ additional grounds and reasons which