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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Favourable Delhi HC 13 September (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2010 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) 3 Abbey Business Services Favourable Bangalore 18 July 2012 India Pvt Ltd (23 ITAT Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance Favourable Mumbai 4 September India Private Limited

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Favourable Delhi HC 13 September (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2010 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) 3 Abbey Business Services Favourable Bangalore 18 July 2012 India Pvt Ltd (23 ITAT Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance Favourable Mumbai 4 September India Private Limited

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS on interest payments made to its members/deposit holders. Thus the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.1,68,68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted. iii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/- and commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS of Rs.13,62,66,494/- was dropped by the AO during the reassessment proceedings and the second issue was not accepted by the AO for granting deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) of Act. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has also partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. During

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS of Rs.13,62,66,494/- was dropped by the AO during the reassessment proceedings and the second issue was not accepted by the AO for granting deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) of Act. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has also partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. During

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS under Section 195 of the Act and for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, Grounds 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Grounds 5 to 11 – Deduction u/s.10B and 10AA of the Act and denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 7.1.1 These grounds (supra) are raised

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6N, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2) of Section 14A. 10.3 In view of the above, we hold that, in the absence of any dissatisfaction recorded by the AO regarding the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be invoked. In the present case, there is no dissatisfaction recorded by the AO with respect to the suo motu disallowance made

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2) of Section 14A. 10.3 In view of the above, we hold that, in the absence of any dissatisfaction recorded by the AO regarding the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be invoked. In the present case, there is no dissatisfaction recorded by the AO with respect to the suo motu disallowance made

M/S MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee appeal is

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.130/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., Mantri House, 41, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 ….Appellant Pan Aafcm 1653D Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Transaction), Circle 1(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. It(It)A No.384/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (By Revenue) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri H. Anand, Addl. Cit (D.R)

2) of the Act and calculated the short deduction of TDS and interest and has determined the total liability payable by the assessee atRs.1,18,07,272/-including interest under Section 201(1A) of Rs.28,28,251

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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. 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

2,95,27,021 which was a receipt for the appellant from sale made to UBHL and is not liable to be included in disallowance; (AY 2017-18): Payment to United Breweries Holding Company (UBHL)– Rs.15,20,63,311/- 15. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld AO disallowing the entire payment of Rs.15

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

2,95,27,021 which was a receipt for the appellant from sale made to UBHL and is not liable to be included in disallowance; (AY 2017-18): Payment to United Breweries Holding Company (UBHL)– Rs.15,20,63,311/- 15. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld AO disallowing the entire payment of Rs.15

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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT