M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

279. 33. This Court in the case of Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004] 269 ITR 1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

1,44,247 (November, 2008) and USD 27,55,121 (December, 2008) before maturity period of the forward contract. By entering into forward contract with banks at predetermined rate of Rs.42.97 per dollar having corresponding export invoices as underlying, the assessee immuned itself from any fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate. From the foreign inward remittance certificate issued

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

1,44,247 (November, 2008) and USD 27,55,121 (December, 2008) before maturity period of the forward contract. By entering into forward contract with banks at predetermined rate of Rs.42.97 per dollar having corresponding export invoices as underlying, the assessee immuned itself from any fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate. From the foreign inward remittance certificate issued

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

1,44,247 (November, 2008) and USD 27,55,121 (December, 2008) before maturity period of the forward contract. By entering into forward contract with banks at predetermined rate of Rs.42.97 per dollar having corresponding export invoices as underlying, the assessee immuned itself from any fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate. From the foreign inward remittance certificate issued

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

TDS was not done thereon, the payments are liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

TDS was not done thereon, the payments are liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

TDS was not done thereon, the payments are liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

TDS was not done thereon, the payments are liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment

SHIVABASAPPA KARIYAPPANAVAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

TDS amounting to Rs. 8,66,071/- not given while passing\nintimation U/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved by the order of the AO passed u/s. 154 of the Act dated\n27/09/2019, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the\nLd.CIT(A)/NFAC.\n5.\nThe ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of the\nassessee

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

M/S AUOTDESK ASIA PTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

279,418,171 3.1 The AO and the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') have erred in not holding that consideration received by the Appellant would not qualify as 'royalty' under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore ('the DTAA') and under the provisions of the Act. 3.2 The AO and the DRP have erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed while the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) and provision of outstanding liability. 3. On facts of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) on all the issues without giving opportunity to the AO. Hence, violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Assessee’s grounds are as under : ITA.1978/Bang/2017

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS cannot be claimed as a deduction. I submit that if this Hon'ble Bench permits the deduction on the ground that some person has to claim the deduction of section 80IA, it would amount to grave injustice. This kind of interpretation may lead to claim of double deduction. Further, due emphasis is to be made on the facts

AJIT KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(It)A No.449/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

279/- and assessee claimed refund of Rs.2,63,670/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.06.2023. Thereafter, other statutory notices were issued on different dates. During the course of reassessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had purchased immovable property in 2008 for a consideration of Rs.21,72,722/- as land

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

Section 11(1) reads as under:- “11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such