PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

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

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

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

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

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

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS Officer in holding the Appellant as "assessee in ITA Nos.648 to 651 & 758 to 761/Bang/2014 M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 7 of 22 default" under section 20 1(1) of the Act and thereby levying the interest under section 201(IA) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the interest levied under section

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IDEA CELLUAR LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS Officer in holding the Appellant as "assessee in ITA Nos.648 to 651 & 758 to 761/Bang/2014 M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 7 of 22 default" under section 20 1(1) of the Act and thereby levying the interest under section 201(IA) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the interest levied under section

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS Officer in holding the Appellant as "assessee in ITA Nos.648 to 651 & 758 to 761/Bang/2014 M/s.Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 7 of 22 default" under section 20 1(1) of the Act and thereby levying the interest under section 201(IA) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the interest levied under section

M/S CGI INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12. Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)-] dated 31 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 14 August 2018), on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts

M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12. Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)-] dated 31 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 14 August 2018), on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts

M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12. Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)-] dated 31 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 14 August 2018), on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S HERBAL LIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

sections. Moreover as person responsible for making payment, it is the duty of the Assessee to deduct tax at source. Sec. 194C, 194-J, 194-H and 194-I do not use the expression "Chargeable to tax". As we have already seen, it is not the case of the Assessee that the payments are not chargeable

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

sections. Moreover as person responsible for making payment, it is the duty of the Assessee to deduct tax at source. Sec. 194C, 194-J, 194-H and 194-I do not use the expression "Chargeable to tax". As we have already seen, it is not the case of the Assessee that the payments are not chargeable

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

sections. Moreover as person responsible for making payment, it is the duty of the Assessee to deduct tax at source. Sec. 194C, 194-J, 194-H and 194-I do not use the expression "Chargeable to tax". As we have already seen, it is not the case of the Assessee that the payments are not chargeable

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

sections. Moreover as person responsible for making payment, it is the duty of the Assessee to deduct tax at source. Sec. 194C, 194-J, 194-H and 194-I do not use the expression "Chargeable to tax". As we have already seen, it is not the case of the Assessee that the payments are not chargeable

STATE BANK OF INDIA,HOSPET vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

TDS if same is not remitted to the Central Govt. Account. (12) That the order of the learned Respondent is hit by Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. No "assessee" can be considered as an "assessee in default" unless a 5 ITA Nos.2 to 5(Bang)/2016 demand notice under section 156 had been given to him. According

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

253/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short] of Rs.5,21,48,541/-. The assessee also declared income under MAT provisions of sec.115JB at Rs.2,20,24,606/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had entered

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

253/- after claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short] of Rs.5,21,48,541/-. The assessee also declared income under MAT provisions of sec.115JB at Rs.2,20,24,606/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had entered

M/S UNBXD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act") against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) —7, Bangalore [learned CIT(A)"] dated 06 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 11 July 2018), on the following grounds: 1. Ground 1: General Page 2 of 12 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,HUBLI vs. CIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS) Hubli without laying the due emphasis on explanation to section 191 which provides that primary liability of payment of income tax is on the assessee to whom the income belongs. (2) The learned Respondent is not justified in treating the appellant as an assessee in default only on failure to deduct tax at source. Reading together of section