BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

20 results for “TDS”+ Section 35Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi53Mumbai28Bangalore20Ahmedabad3Pune2Chennai2Kolkata1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)28Section 92C18Transfer Pricing15Comparables/TP14Section 36(1)(iii)12Addition to Income12Section 10A11Disallowance9Section 144C(5)7Section 144C

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

TDS has not been paid in respect of interest expense of Rs. 67,04,528 and hence 30% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 is to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii), it was stated that the disallowance

6
TDS6
Section 143(2)5

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

TDS has not been paid in respect of interest expense of Rs. 67,04,528 and hence 30% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 is to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii), it was stated that the disallowance

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act for secondment of employees payment for non-deduction of TDS on Fees for Technical Services(FTS) Rs.48,35,91,738/-.Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed objections in Form 35A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THOUGHT WORKS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

THOUGHTWORKS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

M/S. KODIAK NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 284/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.284/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Mfar Manyata Tech Park, Greenheart, Phase Iv, Nagawara, Bangalore-560 045 ….Appellant Pan Aacck 0978J Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan M, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92D

35A with the DRP, whereas the DRP has passed the 8 IT(TP)A No.284/Bang/2017 order granting partial relief with specific directions under Section 144 C(5) of the Act dt.13.12.2016. The A O after the receipt of the DRP order, has made addition of software expenses of Rs.15, 35,172/- as the assessee has failed to deduct TDS

MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, M/s.Microland Ltd

ITA 2778/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrib.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2778/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S.Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Form Erly Known As Novell Software Development (India) Pvt.Ltd.) ‘Bagmane Tech Park’, D Block, ‘Laurel’ 65/2, C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bengaluru-560093. … Appellant Pan:Aaacn 6992 K Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] Dated 27/10/2017 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Dated 18/09/2017. It(Tp)A No.2778/Bang/2017 Page 2 Of 20 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

TDS only to the extent of INR 14,962,665 as against the amount of INR 15,518,356 that was claimed by the Appellant in its return of income for this assessment year. 7. Directions issued by the I.d. DRP: That the directions issued by the Ld. DRP, to the extent they confirm the draft assessment order

M/S ZEOMEGA INFATECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 78/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.78/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Zeomega Infotech Private Limited, 20-21, Rajalakshmi Plaza, Southend Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 ….Appellant Pan Aaacz 1233F Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……Respondent. Circle 7(2)(1), Bangalore. Assessee By: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

35A with the DRP against the Draft assessment order. The DRP issued directions and passed the order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (5) of the Act dt19.09.2016. In compliance to the directions of DRP, the final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 30.11.2016 determining the total income of Rs.4

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT, LTU (D.R)
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(d)Section 77A

35A) in relation to the proposed levy of DDT on the buy-back of shares. 5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in not directing the AO to delete the levy of DDT on buy-back of shares as proposed in the draft assessment order passed under section

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

TDS and advance tax aggregating to Rs. 5,67,94,546, resulting in refund of Rs. 2,61,95,790. 2.4 The aforesaid revised return was picked up for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer under CASS. Notices were issued from time to time for which the Company duly replied. The Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) issued an Order dated 28.01.2021 proposing

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

ITA 553/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

TDS in accordance with law. 23. Ground No. 17 – Charging of interest u/s 234D of the Act 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee denies himself liable to be charged interest u/s 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld

M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

TDS credit of a sum of Rs 66,094,921 as claimed by the Appellant as against a sum of Rs 65,488,691 as granted by the AO. 12. The Learned AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act 13. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

TDS credit of a sum of Rs 66,094,921 as claimed by the Appellant as against a sum of Rs 65,488,691 as granted by the AO. 12. The Learned AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act 13. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

TDS credit, i.e., tax Credits INR 1,43,66,866 as against the actual deduction of INR 1,59,50,812. [Original GoA - No. 37-40] 15.2. The Ld. AO erred in granting the lower amount of Advance Tax credit, of INR 26,30,00,000, as against the actual payment

M/S TELSIMA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 304/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Mahlhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 92C

TDS has not been deducted, the amount sought to be disallowed should be payable and not which has already been paid by the assesse by the end of the year. 21. Set-off of carry forward loss-Rs.264,753,889 a. The learned AO pursuant to the DRP directions erred in not adjusting brought forward losses amounting to Rs.264

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

TDS remittance details at Pg No 1262 of PB-III and challans at Pg No 1321-1322 of PB-III). 3.13 The learned AO in the draft Order, has disallowed the claim u/s 40(a)(i) of Rs.57,53,23,147/. On the ground that said amount pertains to Rs. 107,98,91,825/- which was disallowed under section 92CA

M/S SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

35A besides submissions dated IT(TP)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 20 4.7.2018 copy of which are at pages 483 to 517 of assessee’s paper book. The argument of the assessee on application of CUP method by the TPO was that CUPM compares the price charged' property transferred in a controlled transaction to the price charged for property transferred