INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS thereon. We find that in the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07, the year under consideration, there was no liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194J of the Act in respect of software expenses paid to Indian entities as the term ‘royalty’ in Sec. 194J of the Act was introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

91 for assessment year 2012-13 Ld.AR submitted that, Mumbai Tribunal in case of Royal Western Turf Club Ltd vs ACIT (supra) in recent a judgment followed the view taken by Ld.Single Judge of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) held that, stake monies are not liable to TDS under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

91 for assessment year 2012-13 Ld.AR submitted that, Mumbai Tribunal in case of Royal Western Turf Club Ltd vs ACIT (supra) in recent a judgment followed the view taken by Ld.Single Judge of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) held that, stake monies are not liable to TDS under section

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

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

91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) has held as follows:- “41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

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

91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) has held as follows:- “41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

91,974/- as claimed in the Return of income and reflected in Form no. 26AS for the relevant Assessment Year. 3 Section 244A - Interest on Refund 3.1 The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore has erred in not providing additional interest under section 244A on account of additional TDS

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

91. However, section 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

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

91. However, section 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

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

91. However, the claim of accrual for leave encashment for above years was disallowed during assessment proceedings which were appealed by the company. Meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.04.2020 reversing the decision of Calcutta High Court held that leave encashment claim has to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 430 on actual payment

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 u/s 195, as the demand raised under section 201(1)/(1A) in respect of the aforesaid payment has been fully paid in FY 2013-14, the said expenditure should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income for AY 2014-15. Grounds on allowability of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for a sum of Rs.249,91

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

91,580/-. The dividend\nincome of Rs. 34,65,071/- received from the revocable trust was\nincluded in her total income in accordance with section 61 read with\nsection 63 of the Act. Along with such income, she claimed credit of TDS

M/S. INVENDIS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 91 makes provision for grant of unilateral relief by the Government of India in respect of incomes which had suffered taxes both in India and in the country with which there is no agreement for double taxation relief for avoidance of double taxation. The key elements while computing the deduction u/s.91 are (i) Doubly taxed income (ii) Effective Indian

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

91,580/-. The dividend income of Rs. 34,65,071/- received from the revocable trust was included in her total income in accordance with section 61 read with section 63 of the Act. Along with such income, she claimed credit of TDS

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 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S VIDAL HEALTH INSURANCE TPA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , BANGALORE

In the result appeals for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P. Meena

91,513/-, as a consequence to which, TDS credit was also disallowed, as it pertained to earlier assessment years. Aggrieved by additions made by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT (A), who upheld observations of Ld.AO. 3.4. As regards application section

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 – Payment of 1,55,64,500 194IA(P) consideration for purchase of immovable property (Section 194IA) 3. Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.03.2022 was issued to the assessee to file reply on 30.03.2022, but the assessee did not reply. Another notice u/s 148A(d) and u/s. 148 on 31.03.2022 was issued with the approval

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 91(vii). Following our own judgment, we are upholding the order of the ld CIT(A) holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 91(vii). Following our own judgment, we are upholding the order of the ld CIT(A) holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS