INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was liable for disallowance. 18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under section 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also independently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, no double addition

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

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 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)

Section 90(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

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

TDS was deducted, the\nAO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was\nliable for disallowance.\n18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under\nsection 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also\nindependently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nHowever, no double addition

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

TDS was deducted, the\nAO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was\nliable for disallowance.\n18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under\nsection 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also\nindependently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nHowever, no double addition

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS was deducted, the\nAO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was\nliable for disallowance.\n18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under\nsection 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also\nindependently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nHowever, no double addition

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

TDS was deducted, the\nAO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was\nliable for disallowance.\n\n18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under\nsection 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also\nindependently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nHowever, no double addition

M/S TORRY HARRIS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

272 under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act vide order dt.13.3.2014 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.14,72,10,830 in view of the Assessing Officer restricting the deduction

M/S J K FABRICS BANGALORE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

TDS – Whether since earlier circular created a vested right in taxpayer and subsequent circular sought to withdraw said right, subsequent circular will not have retrospective effect and disallowance was to be deleted – Held, yes [Para 6] [in favour of assessee].” 17. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Welspring

HIPL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2015-16

272) Add: Items Disallowed Interest on Tax (TDS) 1,252 Any other amount not allowable under section 37* 8,43,090 *Preliminary

SMT. SHANTHI R PAI,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

272/- a foreign company TDS Return — Other Interest Rs.8,71,031/- 3 2012-13 TDS-194A Rs.85,803/- 4 2012-13 TDS-195 TDS Return — Payment to Non residents 4.3 The AO has not mentioned any section

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

EDUNXT GLOBAL SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2496/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, The Deputy Unit A(Ii) Level 5. Commissioner Of Income Menara Shell, Tax, 211 Jalan Tun Circle 1(1), Sambathan, International Taxation, Kuala Lumpur, Vs. Bangalore. My – 50470, Malaysia. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate & Revenue By Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 23-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By Non Resident Assessee Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit(It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 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 Had In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

272 ITR 99 (AAR)  Elsevier Information Systems GmbH v DCIT(IT) [2019] 106 taxmann.com 401 (Mumbai - Trib.)  American Chemical Society v DCIT(IT) [2019] 106 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai - Trib.)  ITO(IT) v Cadila Healthcare Ltd [2017] 77 taxmann.com 309 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)  The Regents of the University of California UCLA Anderson School of Management Executive Education