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

41,93,89,636 under section 37 of the Act without appreciating the submissions furnished by the Appellant. . 1.9 The NFAC has erred in law and on facts by disregarding that the ESOP expenditure is liable to withholding tax under section 192 of the Act as ‘perquisite’ in the hands of the employees, and appropriate taxes were deducted and remitted

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

41(1)", "40(a)(ia)", "194C", "194J", "32", "37", "38(2)", "24" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of expenses and depreciation on luxury cars, based on a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborative evidence, is justified? Whether payments for online advertising platforms are subject to TDS

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

TDS provisions.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "132", "132(4)", "153A", "131", "32", "37", "38(2)", "41(1)", "40(a)(ia)", "194C

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

section 201(1)/(1A) having regards to the scheme of the Act and various decisions by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as various decisions of coordinate bench. We have reproduced the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in the preceding paragraphs. And the same stands upheld based on the discussions herein above. 12. We therefore, are of the view

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

41(1)", "24" ], "issues": "Whether the expenses and depreciation claimed on luxury cars used for business promotion can be disallowed based solely on a statement recorded during search proceedings without corroborating evidence? Whether the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

TDS. Failure to do so\nattracts Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee cannot take shelter\nunder the plea of automation. The payments are still for services, and\nthe law does not exempt such cases. The orders of AO and CIT(A) are\ncorrect and should be upheld.\n50. We have heard the rival contentions of both

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

TDS. Failure to do so\nattracts section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee cannot take shelter\nunder the plea of automation. The payments are still for services, and\nthe law does not exempt such cases. The orders of AO and CIT(A) are\ncorrect and should be upheld.\n50.\nWe have heard the rival contentions of both

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS and self-assessment tax. The learned CIT(A) after examining the contention, rightly observed that grant of credit for prepaid taxes is a matter of factual verification. Accordingly, he directed the AO to verify the claim and allow the credit as per law, if found correct. We find no infirmity in such direction, as it is in line with

DCIT vs. M/S AVIATORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.1796/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Aviators (India) P. Ltd, 1309, Brigade Towers, 135, Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 025 .. Respondent Pan : Aabca4499H Assessee By : Shri. G. Venkatesh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 30.03.2015 Pronounced On : 12.04.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

TDS since these were Government controlled entities. Assessee also relied on a Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 1 Vishakapatnam, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd [357 ITR 642], and that

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 to section 40(a)(i). 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, software expenses of Rs. 30,23,602 and Rs. 14,65,417 respectively [totaling

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, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs.2,42,41

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

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

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

41(1) of the Act as being unsustainable. 8.0. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed.” 32. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss ground Nos.6 and 7 raised by the Revenue. 33. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly

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 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,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 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,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 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

TDS under section 194IA. 3.32 The learned AR submitted that an important characteristic of ‘consideration’ is that the same belongs to the transferor / seller (land owner in the present case). A recipient of consideration is not obliged to repay the same. The amount of consideration can be appropriated by the recipient. The said characteristic is however not associated with

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

41 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 The deduction under sub-Section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-Section