M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1-6- 2015. Hence, the demand notices under section 200A by the respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee under section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent.[Para 24] As such, as recorded earlier

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

25,21,444/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated :Rs.1,22,83,222/- For AY:2013-14: Total Provision :Rs.1,65,77,388/- TDS deducted and paid in the same year : Rs.1,01,59,588/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated : The amount of Rs.1,01,59,588/-, inadvertently was retained in the provision. However upon noticing the error

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

25,21,444/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated :Rs.1,22,83,222/- For AY:2013-14: Total Provision :Rs.1,65,77,388/- TDS deducted and paid in the same year : Rs.1,01,59,588/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated : The amount of Rs.1,01,59,588/-, inadvertently was retained in the provision. However upon noticing the error

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i) on the reason that tax has not been deducted, it is Page 25 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 surprising that AO holds that the said amounts are subject to TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i) on the reason that tax has not been deducted, it is Page 25 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 surprising that AO holds that the said amounts are subject to TDS

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i) on the reason that tax has not been deducted, it is Page 25 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 surprising that AO holds that the said amounts are subject to TDS

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

25,21,444/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated :Rs.1,22,83,222/- For AY:2013-14: Total Provision :Rs.1,65,77,388/- TDS deducted and paid in the same year : Rs.1,01,59,588/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated: The amount of Rs.1,01,59,588/-, inadvertently was retained in the provision. However, upon noticing the error

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS under section 195 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 2.2 Even otherwise, since subscription charges were actually paid to M/s Forester Research during the relevant previous year and there was no amount payable as on 31.3.2005, no disallowance is to be made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3.1 The learned Commissioner

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

TDS under section 195 of the Act are not applicable. IT(TP)A No.413/Bang/2022 Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 32 ESOP cross-charges are deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act 2.15 Ld. A.R. submitted that as indicated earlier, the ESOP cross-charges represents the actual expenditure incurred by the Company in respect

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS thereon. We find that in the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07, the year under consideration, there was no liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194J of the Act in respect of software expenses paid to Indian entities as the term ‘royalty’ in Sec. 194J of the Act was introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

25,370.00 only. The return was processed\nunder section 143(1) of the Act by CPC, which determined a higher\nincome and raised a tax demand. The difference arose because the CPC\ndid not allow the set off of short-term capital loss of Rs. 16,28,978\narising from STT-paid equity transactions against other capital gains\nchargeable

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25

VEENA SOMANI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 25

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

25,370.00 only. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC, which determined a higher income and raised a tax demand. The difference arose because the CPC did not allow the set off of short-term capital loss of Rs. 16,28,978 arising from STT-paid equity transactions against other capital gains chargeable