SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not covered 5 under the provisions of Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative also relied on the judicial decisions and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs. ITO (TDS

SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

TDS was deducted on the payments made towards computer software. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are thus allowed. Addition made u/s. 28(iv) of the Act 9. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that the assessee has received assets free of cost from AEs located outside India to whom the assessee is providing software

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

28 10. of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 partook the character of compensation for land acquired and fell within the ambit of section 10(37) of the Act and to that exempt was exempt. The Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) and further submitted that the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 partook the character of compensation for land acquired and fell within the ambit of section 10(37) of the Act and to that exempt was exempt. The CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) in coming to the above conclusion and further

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

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

TDS under section 194C and made the\npayment of balance amount to the Appellant.\n6.2 Further, on going through the copies of records of rights,\nfarming and crop From No.16, for the land used by the assessee for\ncultivation placed at page 148 to 149 of the paper book as well as\npage 264 to 267 of the paper book

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS for the period prior to 1-4-2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Divisiorr Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the Single Judge.[Para

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. 6. In support he placed reliance on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Tribunal in case of Pfizer Ltd vs.ITO(TDS)(OSD) reported in (2012) 28

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. 6. In support he placed reliance on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Tribunal in case of Pfizer Ltd vs.ITO(TDS)(OSD) reported in (2012) 28

SOMCHAND GIRIRAJ GUPTA ,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 & TPS , VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Somchand Giriraj Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, Mukund Nagar, Ward 1 & Tps, Station Road, Vijayapur. Vijayapura. Vs. Pan: Abtpg6461F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

TDS was deducted by the competent authority on the compensation paid to assessee, proof of the same is placed at page 13 of paper book. 6. The Ld.Counsel submitted that compensation was received by assessee under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RFCTLAAR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS), LTU, Divyashree Gardens, 2013-14 2016 Bangalore. No. 12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A, Challghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AABCD8893L : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee by Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT- Revenue by DR Page 2 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 Date of Hearing : 28-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS), LTU, Divyashree Gardens, 2013-14 2016 Bangalore. No. 12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A, Challghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AABCD8893L : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee by Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT- Revenue by DR Page 2 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 Date of Hearing : 28-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS), LTU, Divyashree Gardens, 2013-14 2016 Bangalore. No. 12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A, Challghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AABCD8893L : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee by Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT- Revenue by DR Page 2 ITA Nos. 1644/Bang/2014, 1151/Bang/2015 & 2035/Bang/2016 Date of Hearing : 28-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

28,000. 3.4 The NFAC erred in not considering the Hon’ble DRP’s direction and not allowing the claim of consequential depreciation on software expenses (disallowed by the AO in the earlier years considering the same as capital in nature) amounting to INR 3,970,944. 3.5 The NFAC erred in levying interest under section 234B

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

28 taxmann.com 162 (Kar) and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com 141 dt.15.10.2011 has elaborately discussed this issue and held that payments made for import of software constitute ‘Royalty’ and hence liable for TDS under Section

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

28 taxmann.com 162 (Kar) and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com 141 dt.15.10.2011 has elaborately discussed this issue and held that payments made for import of software constitute ‘Royalty’ and hence liable for TDS under Section

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

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

28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Sections 30 to 36 confer specific deductions. Section 37 deals with expenditure which is general in nature and not covered within sections 30 to 36. The allowability of brand building expense would have to be examined under section 37 - the residuary section. To examine eligibility

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

28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Sections 30 to 36 confer specific deductions. Section 37 deals with expenditure which is general in nature and not covered within sections 30 to 36. The allowability of brand building expense would have to be examined under section 37 - the residuary section. To examine eligibility