DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

54. As explained in the foregoing paragraphs, Section 2(17) of the income Tax Act r.w.s. 2(26) which defines „company‟ to mean a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, does not meet the requirement of being a company in the case of assessee bank, because the Indian company has to be formed and registered under

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 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 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 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

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2(45) of the Act. . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 20 10.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention, observing that the expenses mentioned above were either of a personal nature with no relation to the objectives of the trust or were in the nature of interest and penalties, which are also not related

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2(45) of the Act. . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 20 10.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention, observing that the expenses mentioned above were either of a personal nature with no relation to the objectives of the trust or were in the nature of interest and penalties, which are also not related

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

54. As explained in the foregoing paragraphs, Section 2(17) of the income Tax Act r.w.s. 2(26) which defines „company‟ to mean a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, does not meet the requirement of being a company in the case of assessee bank, because the Indian company has to be formed and registered under

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,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

TDS under section 192\nof the Act would not be of any relevance\nsince the credit of taxes deducted under\nsection 192 of the Act are given in the\nhands of the employees whereas the\nAssessee's receipts were in nature of FTS.\n(Page 15 &16 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the below\njudicial

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

section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\n==End of OCR for page 46== IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nPage 47 of 56\nObservation of the CIT(A)\n- The CIT(A) also

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

2)(a) / 270A(2)(b) of the Act.\n(Page 14 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nServices India (P.) Ltd ([2012] 23\ntaxmann.com 346 (Bangalore ITAT) and\n([2020]122\ntaxmann.com\n174\n(Karnataka HC), by contending that the\nsame is distinct in facts, on account

IBM JAPAN 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.\n\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)\n- The CIT(A) also highlighted that in\nAbbey's case