SRI MOHAN PURI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

54 of the Act of RS.41,456 representing bank charges and membership fees. However, the CIT(A) confirmed most of the disallowances made by the A.O. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book comprising of 97 pages enclosing therein the sale

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

54 or sub-section (2) of section 54B or sub-section (2) of section 54D or sub-section (4) of section 54F or sub-section (2) of section 54G or sub-section (2) of section 54GB , shall utilise the whole or any part of the amount so withdrawn for the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of the section

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

54 etc. The assessee\nclaimed to have sold 6 flats for a total consideration of Rs. 9,85,81,022/- on\nvarious dates during FY 2016-17 and computed the Long Term Capital Gains at\nRs.4,82,00,000/-The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F amounting to\nRs.4,80,33,694/- in the return of income filed, in respect

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

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LINITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 986/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(It)A No. 990/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Addl. Respondent By : Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

section 195A of the Act. Payments made to the non-resident in USA was towards retainership and site license subscription fee and, payment made to the non-resident in Poland was towards legal service rendered. Assessee deposited TDS from its own funds and the TDS certificate were not issued to the non-residents. It is submitted that the TDS

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

In the result appeals filed for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 986/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(It)A No. 990/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Addl. Respondent By : Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

section 195A of the Act. Payments made to the non-resident in USA was towards retainership and site license subscription fee and, payment made to the non-resident in Poland was towards legal service rendered. Assessee deposited TDS from its own funds and the TDS certificate were not issued to the non-residents. It is submitted that the TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

TDS.\n29. Therefore it should be clear that once the income falls in the category\ndescribed under 9(1)(vii) irrespective of the fact whether the amount paid by\nAMAT India is equal to the cost incurred by the SECONDER or not. These\nquestions are irrelevant for deciding the taxability of the income from Fees\nfor Technical Services.\nTaxation under

SHRI. KANTHULA RAVISHANKAR,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazkanthula Ravishanker, ‘Ravshan’ No.7, Bruton Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore . Respondent Appellant By : Shri A.C Raju, C.A Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-1-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-1-2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 7, Bangalore Dated 30/8/2016 For Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are As Under:- 2.1 The Assessee, Prop. K.K Corporation, Engaged In Business As Selling Agents For M/S Raymonal Ltd., Products For The States Of Ita No.1897/B/16 2

TDS Rs. 54,79,160/-. As per the provisions of Section 198, the amount of TDS is deemed income of the deductee

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

section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act 1872. The A.O. concluded that out of 54 land owners, the assessee is in default of not discharging TDS

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating that the provisions of TDS is not applicable on Rebate provided to distributors working on a Principal to Principal basis. 2.2 Having accepted that the ownership has been transferred to the distributors, the learned AO has erred in stating IT(TP)A Nos.641 & 642/Bang/2016 Page 25 of 54

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating that the provisions of TDS is not applicable on Rebate provided to distributors working on a Principal to Principal basis. 2.2 Having accepted that the ownership has been transferred to the distributors, the learned AO has erred in stating IT(TP)A Nos.641 & 642/Bang/2016 Page 25 of 54

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), HUBLI vs. GENERAL MANAGAR,, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross-objection of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P. Boazi.T.A No.1191 To 1194/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 To 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer (Tds) 3Rd Floor, Cr Bldg.Annexe, Navanagar, Hubli-580 025 .. Appellant Vs. The Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gf, Urban Bank Building, 1 Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubli 580 020 .. Respondent Pan : Aaaah0120P C.O.Nos. 25 To 28/Bang/2015 In I.T.A No.1191 To 1194/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 To 2012-13) The Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gf, Urban Bank Building, 1 Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubli 580 020 .. Cross-Objector Pan : Aaaah0120P Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) 3Rd Floor, Cr Bldg.Annexe, Navanagar, Hubli-580 025 .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G.V.Desai, Ca 1

54,55,579 Rs2,08,49,807 u/s.194-A: TDS not made on interest above Rs.10,000/- 2 ITA Nos.1191 to 1194/Bang/2014 & C.O.Nos.25 to 28/Bang/2015 The AO was of the view that as per the provisions of Sec.194A(1) of the Act, the Assessee who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than

IBM CANADA 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

section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nPage 47 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) also highlighted that in\nAbbey's case, the Assessee

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,CHITRADURGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

54 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 and manner as may be prescribed for estimating income of the employee. 6.3.15. The memorandum explaining insertion of clause (2D) to section 192 by Finance Bill 2015, reads as under: Rationalisation of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS