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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30 to 38

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30 to 38

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30 to 38

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30 to 38

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

38.\niii. As per section 40, certain amounts on which TDS has\nnot been effected shall not be deducted in computing

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS and claimed as expenditure in P&L account should not be disallowed in terms of provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Assessee in response submitted that, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a Writ petition filed by assessee along with others by judgment dated 26/09/2014 observed that Circular No.240 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS and claimed as expenditure in P&L account should not be disallowed in terms of provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Assessee in response submitted that, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a Writ petition filed by assessee along with others by judgment dated 26/09/2014 observed that Circular No.240 Page

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 38 under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Accordingly, the additional ground nos. 2-3 raised by assessees stands dismissed in all the appeals.” 8.1 Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed in both the appeals on similar lines. 9. Next ground No.5 is with regard to non-giving of TDS

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 38 under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Accordingly, the additional ground nos. 2-3 raised by assessees stands dismissed in all the appeals.” 8.1 Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed in both the appeals on similar lines. 9. Next ground No.5 is with regard to non-giving of TDS

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

TDS on provisions for software expenses amounting to Rs.7,36,83,260 and consequent disallowance, if any, u/ 40(a)(i) of the Act, following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of KPTCL Vs. DCIT (supra) and of the co- ordinate bench in the case of TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. (supra) after

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) (supra) relied by the Ld.Sr.DR. 18. Further Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in case of Ramkrishna Vedanta Math vs. ITO reported in (2013) 55 SOT 417 decided an issue whether, a demand under section 201(1A) r.w.s. 194 C can be enforced even in a situation in which the recipient of income embedded in the payments has paid due taxes

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

TDS under Section 195 of the Act and consequently not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 20.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. There is no dispute that the services rendered by the non-resident commission agents outside India was to procure new business and to strengthen

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 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 Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

TDS u/s 195, as the demand raised under section 201(1)/(1A) in respect of the aforesaid payment has been fully paid in FY 2013-14, the said expenditure should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income for AY 2014-15. Grounds on allowability of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for a sum of Rs.249,91,38

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on collection charges as provided under section 194H of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 38

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on collection charges as provided under section 194H of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 38

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on collection charges as provided under section 194H of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 38

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on collection charges as provided under section 194H of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ITA Nos.581, 596, 622, 636/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 38

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section