IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM JAPAN LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1

IBM AUSTRALIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.  Provision of bandwidth facility does not tantamount to use of or right to use any secret process. The AAR mentioned that similar bandwidth services through private circuits are being provided by many other telecom operators and hence the royalty definition relating to secret process is not attracted while providing telecom bandwidth facility

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.  Provision of bandwidth facility does not tantamount to use of or right to use any secret process. The AAR mentioned that similar bandwidth services through private circuits are being provided by many other telecom operators and hence the royalty definition relating to secret process is not attracted while providing telecom bandwidth facility

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

TDS credit AO to verify and allow Foreign tax credit of Rs. 96,55,80,804 includes an amount of Rs. 68,14,32,706 which is under dispute before the Australian Tax Authorities. As per section 155(14A) read with rule 128(4), tax credit should be allowed in respect of disputed foreign tax once the same is settled

LALITH KUMAR DOSI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

1) of the Act be treated as invalid. Since there is no such provision for return of TDS u/s. 200(3) of the Act, the AO cannot treat the statement of TDS filed as invalid. To this argument, the CIT(Appeals) held that the provisions of section 139 and section 200(3) cannot be compared. He also took the following

LALIT KUMAR DOSI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

1) of the Act be treated as invalid. Since there is no such provision for return of TDS u/s. 200(3) of the Act, the AO cannot treat the statement of TDS filed as invalid. To this argument, the CIT(Appeals) held that the provisions of section 139 and section 200(3) cannot be compared. He also took the following

PACHISIA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KANAKPURA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are allowed

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

1) of the Act be treated as invalid. Since there is no such provision for return of TDS u/s. 200(3) of the Act, the AO cannot treat the statement of TDS filed as invalid. To this argument, the CIT(Appeals) held that the provisions of section 139 and section 200(3) cannot be compared. He also took the following