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

2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription 14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there

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

249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act are almost identical except the\nword 'managerial' is not finding place in the definition of the tax treaties.\n30.7 As per the definition of fees for included services in the above said tax\ntreaty provisions;\na. The payments may be made to any person in consideration to his\nrendering of technical

M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTER TRADE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.1257/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S. Fiza Developers & Inter Trade P. Ltd, No.25/1, Residency Road, Bangalore .. Appellant Pan : Aaacf5868N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -11(3), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 25.08.2015 Pronounced On : 27.08.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George: In This Appeal Filed By Assessee Directed Against An Order Dt.17.06.2013, Its Grievance Is That The Cit (A) Dismissed Its Appeal For Non-Payment Of Tax Due On Returned Income. 02. When The Matter Came Up Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Total Tax Due As Per The Return Filed Was Rs.87,14,679/- Out Of Which, Rs.16,90,412/- Stood Credited On Account Of Tds. As Per The Ld. Ar Though It Was True That Assessee Had Not Paid Full Amount Of Tax At The Time Of Filing The Return Or Before The Appeal Was Filed, It Was Later Paid In Full. Ld. Ar

2 pointed out that CIT (A) had at para 4 of its order mentioned that taxes were paid by the assessee in 2010. 03. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that assessee having not paid the admitted tax before filing the appeal before CIT (A), the latter was justified in dismissing the appeal. 04. We have perused the orders and heard

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act are almost identical except the\nword 'managerial' is not finding place in the definition of the tax treaties.\n\n30.7 As per the definition of fees for included services in the above said tax\ntreaty provisions;\n\na. The payments may be made to any person in consideration to his\nrendering

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS credit of Rs. 13,22,01,075/-. 43. After hearing both the parties, we direct the AO to consider the revised tax credit afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. 44. Ground Nos.25, 26 & 27 are consequential in nature. Deduction in respect of unclaimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) – Ground No.28. 45. The assessee has raised additional reads

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS credit of Rs. 13,22,01,075/-. 43. After hearing both the parties, we direct the AO to consider the revised tax credit afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. 44. Ground Nos.25, 26 & 27 are consequential in nature. Deduction in respect of unclaimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) – Ground No.28. 45. The assessee has raised additional reads

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act are almost identical except the\nword 'managerial' is not finding place in the definition of the tax treaties.\n\n30.7 As per the definition of fees for included services in the above said tax\ntreaty provisions;\na. The payments may be made to any person in consideration to his\nrendering

NDS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act (except for reimbursement towards software which has been held to be in the nature of 'royalty') as well as under the provisions of the India — UK DTAA. 3.2. The Ld AO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not appreciating the fact that the reimbursements were purely on cost to cost basis, which

NDS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act (except for reimbursement towards software which has been held to be in the nature of 'royalty') as well as under the provisions of the India — UK DTAA. 3.2. The Ld AO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not appreciating the fact that the reimbursements were purely on cost to cost basis, which

NDS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act (except for reimbursement towards software which has been held to be in the nature of 'royalty') as well as under the provisions of the India — UK DTAA. 3.2. The Ld AO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not appreciating the fact that the reimbursements were purely on cost to cost basis, which

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules @ 0.5% of average value of investments. Ld. DRP restored the matter to the file of A.O. with the direction to examine this issue afresh by considering the decision rendered by ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej &Boyce Manufacturing Company

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195 of the Act and the approval received from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has been enclosed at pages 247 to 249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 195 of the Act and the approval received from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has been enclosed at pages 247 to 249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2