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

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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. 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 WIPRO LTD. vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and S

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

90(2) and 90A(2). In any case, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that the restraint imposed by section 206AA from applying the provisions under the Act which are more beneficial to the assessee did not prevent the appellant from applying the provisions of the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements for the purpose of deducting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S BEML LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

TDS), Mysore – 570 018. Circle - 1(1), PAN : BLRBO 2644 F Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Assessee by : Shri. R. E. Balasubramanyam, CA Date of hearing : 16.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order

DY DIT vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD.,,

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

90(2) of the Act and that in the impugned cases of payments made to non-residents, assessee correctly applied the rate of tax prescribed under the DTAAs and not as per section 206AA of the Act because the 11 ITA No.1143/(B)2013 & IT(IT)A Nos.8 & 9-14 & CO Nos.83 & 84-14 provisions of the DTAAs was more

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

90(1)(a)(ii) uses the expression “income tax chargeable under this IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 48 of 202 Act and under the Corresponding law in force in that Country…..” Thus, it can be noticed that the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec.91(1) refers

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

90(1)(a)(ii) uses the expression “income tax chargeable under this IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 48 of 202 Act and under the Corresponding law in force in that Country…..” Thus, it can be noticed that the provisions of sec.90(1)(a)(i) and sec.91(1) refers

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

90,18,430/-, and computed the Book Profit of Rs. 3797,21,59,420/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 3 of 20 2.2 The assessee Bank preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) against the said original Order of assessment. The ld. CIT(Appeals), Mangalore

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

TDS was deducted has not been doubted by the authorities therefore it is clear that such expenses incurred in connection of charitable purpose but the delay in compliance the assessee paid an extra cost. Thus, it does not mean that such excess cost is not allowable. Penalty - ESI and Professional Tax (Rs. 16,69,730.00) 14.5 The penalty pertains

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

TDS was deducted has not been doubted by the authorities therefore it is clear that such expenses incurred in connection of charitable purpose but the delay in compliance the assessee paid an extra cost. Thus, it does not mean that such excess cost is not allowable. Penalty - ESI and Professional Tax (Rs. 16,69,730.00) 14.5 The penalty pertains

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

90,18,430/-, and computed the Book Profit of Rs.\n3797,21,59,420/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act.\n2.2 The assessee Bank preferred an appeal before the CIT\n(Appeals) against the said original Order of assessment. The ld.\nCIT(Appeals), Mangalore vide his appellate order dated 26.03.2018,\npartly allowed the appeal.\n2.3 The aforesaid

M/S MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee appeal is

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.130/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., Mantri House, 41, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 ….Appellant Pan Aafcm 1653D Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Transaction), Circle 1(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. It(It)A No.384/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (By Revenue) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri H. Anand, Addl. Cit (D.R)

Section 90(2) of the Act and calculated the short deduction of TDS and interest and has determined the total

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, FTS has been defined to mean consideration paid for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services. He submitted, section 44AA of the Act, clearly distinguishes profession from business and as per the said provision, legal and technical consultancy are distinct from each other. Further, drawing our attention to section 194J

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, FTS has been defined to mean consideration paid for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services. He submitted, section 44AA of the Act, clearly distinguishes profession from business and as per the said provision, legal and technical consultancy are distinct from each other. Further, drawing our attention to section 194J