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 demand again under section 201 and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Therefore, assessee's ground on this issue are to be allowed as the entire amount has been disallowed under the provisions of section 40

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 demand again under section 201 and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Therefore, assessee's ground on this issue are to be allowed as the entire amount has been disallowed under the provisions of section 40

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 demand again under section 201 and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Therefore, assessee's ground on this issue are to be allowed as the entire amount has been disallowed under the provisions of section 40

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 demand again under section 201 and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Therefore, assessee's ground on this issue are to be allowed as the entire amount has been disallowed under the provisions of section 40

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

TDS in respect of the payment in question and therefore the assessee has violated the provisions of section 195 of the Act and consequently, the provisions of section 40

SRI. SINGONAHALLI CHIKKAREVANNA GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS on the payments debited as vehicle hire charges

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 under section 195 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i). 2.2 Even otherwise, since subscription

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 under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso

GEETHA PUNDALEEKA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS along with a penal interest under section 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40

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

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee on computer software is considered for disallowance for non-deduction of TDS

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

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee on computer software is considered for disallowance for non-deduction of TDS

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

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee on computer software is considered for disallowance for non-deduction of TDS

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

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee on computer software is considered for disallowance for non-deduction of TDS

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

40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee on computer software is considered for disallowance for non-deduction of TDS

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\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in respect of\ndisallowance of revenue expenditure on which TDS has\nnot been effected. This particular viewpoint of the assessee\nhas been considered and found to be not in accordance\nwith the provisions of the Income-tax Act in view of the\nfollowing reasons:-\ni. Section

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 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). 2.3 Without prejudice, when credit

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

40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in respect of\ndisallowance of revenue expenditure on which TDS has\nnot been effected. This particular viewpoint of the assessee\nhas been considered and found to be not in accordance\nwith the provisions of the Income-tax Act in view of the\nfollowing reasons:-\ni. Section

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

TDS liability cannot be fastened upon the assessee retrospectively. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operating portion of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench:- “4. Ground Nos.2 to 5 are regarding disallowance under Section 40