SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act were not applicable for interest on enhanced compensation as interest was in the nature of enhanced compensation and not interest. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the CIT(Appeals), the Assessee 11. has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act were not applicable for interest on enhanced compensation as such interest was in the nature of enhanced compensation and not interest. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the CIT(Appeals), the revenue has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if 10 IT(TP)A No.2310/Bang/2019. M/s GMR Enterprises Private Limited. for any reason the AO has any doubt recording such valuation report and does

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

TDS) & Another 388 ITR 343 (Guj) where the Hon'ble High Court has specified that interest under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not interest referred to Section 56

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

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

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

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

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

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

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

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS Statement – 155.65 During the year the assessee jointly Payment of purchased an immoveable property, at consideration for Tower 6 Apt #154 of the residential purchase of complex 'Pebble Bay', along with the Mr immovable Srinivasan Mahesh (IT PA No property (Section AOEPM3625M), No.44, Main Road 194IA) Raysandra Village, Aneshwara Devanahalli , Bangalore 560017 for a total consideration Rs.3

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

TDS on interest payments made to its members/deposit holders. Thus the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.1,68,68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted.\niii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/-\nand commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

section 194C which does not form to be\nagriculture activities.\nvi The Proprietary concern of the assessee M/S. Kala Farm is\ninvolved in nursery activities for decorative plants. This activity\ncannot be considered as agricultural activities as TDS is\ndeducted u/s.194C of the I.T. Act.\nvii The assessee did not prove with documentary evidences that the\nbusiness undertaken with various

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

56. In assessee’s case details of the invoices along with the corresponding FIRCs mapping are furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities to substantiate that the export proceeds are received by the assessee (pages 958-977 of the paper book). We also notice that the AO has denied the deduction, based on the findings

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

56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nrespect to the TDS demands under section

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

56\nrespect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with\nrespect to the taxability of the very

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

56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nrespect to the TDS demands under section

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS return by the concerned Bank and for no default of the appellant and hence, ought to have refrained from confirming the said addition of Rs.22,79,226. (5) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. (6) Without prejudice the disallowance as confirmed bythe learned CIT(Appeals) are arbitrary excessive

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS return by the concerned Bank and for no default of the appellant and hence, ought to have refrained from confirming the said addition of Rs.22,79,226. (5) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. (6) Without prejudice the disallowance as confirmed bythe learned CIT(Appeals) are arbitrary excessive

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

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

56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nrespect to the TDS demands under section

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