DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 40(a)(ia) and taxes paid on the same, there is no loss to revenue to the Government as the revenue is more than adequately compensated in the form of higher taxes by the deductor due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In this regard, the Company had made a detailed submission before the learned AO vide submission dated

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 credit AO to verify and allow Foreign tax credit of Rs. 96,55,80,804 includes an amount of Rs. 68,14,32,706 which is under dispute before the Australian Tax Authorities. As per section

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab\nrate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act\nfor Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence

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

96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab rate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act . ITA No.2194 & 2195/Bang/2025 Page

DCIT vs. SASKEN NETWORK ENGG. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Sasken Network Engineering Limited, Of Income Tax, No.139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Circle - 12(3), 14/3, 4Th Floor, Rastrothana Ring Road, Domlur, Bhavan (Opp. Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaics 4405 Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Respondent By : Shri. C. Narayan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.01.2013 Of Cit(Appeals)-Iii, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which The Said Appeal By The Revenue Arises For Consideration Are The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Engaged Inter Alia In The Business Of Installation & Commissioning Services. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income ('Rol') Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act') On October 31, 2007 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs 3,05,04,940 On Which Taxes Of Rs 1,02,67,963 Were Payable. On Account Of Credit For Taxes Deducted At Source (Tds') Amounting To Rs 1,21,26,857 & Self Assessment Tax Amounting To Rs 1,60,0000 A Page 2 Of 9 Refund Of Rs 34,58,894 Was Claimed. The Rol Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Concluded Vide Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated December 17, 2009 Wherein Income Returned By The Assessee In The Rol Was Accepted By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3) (A0).

section 143(3) of the Act dated December 17, 2009 wherein income returned by the assessee in the Rol was accepted by the AO. In the said assessment order, the AO did not make any addition on account of income not declared as per TDS certificate amounting to Rs. 20,27,96

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD-1 , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

96,92,218. The Assessing Officer has verified the agreements and also recorded statement under Section 131 of the Act from the Asst. Commissioner of Special Land Acquisition, KIADB, Dharwad. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee could not establish that the TDS

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

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

96,28,158 while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was contended that the rectification notice to further reduce the TDS credit to Rs.9,59,95,058 would clearly indicate the change of opinion. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the objections raised by the assessee and passed an order of rectification

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

TDS was made, therefore, it was also disallowed as per section 40(a)(ia) 14. On appeal the CIT(A) after discussing in detail on many judgments did not accept the plea of the assessee and in case of Page 12 of 30 AMC expenses he observed that the first proviso of section 201(1) is not automatic , the onus

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

96,288 2,6,288 Sons TDS done – appearing in Form 26AS Income from LIC proceeds 4,78,000 14,78,000 Total 8,08,282 17,74,288 Difference between Form 26AS and IFOS as per return of income = 17,74,288 - 8,08,282 = 9,66,006. 3.6 The appellant submitted an online response on 1.6.2018 stating that

SRI. SINGONAHALLI CHIKKAREVANNA GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

96,19,460/- determined by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], as against the income declared by the appellant of Rs. 28,64,560/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 2 Sri.Singonahalli Chikkarevanna Gangadharaiah. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming

M/S. TIVO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VEVEO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

96 taxmann.com 263 (Bang Trib) and Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd. (order dated 27.12.2021 passed in IT(TP)A No. 190/Bang/2021). The ld AR further submitted that on application of the turnover filter on 1- 200 crores, the following the companies would be excluded: (a) Infosys Ltd. (b) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (c) Persistent Systems Ltd. (d) Aspire Systems (India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS was not relevant. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing part relief on levy of surcharge and education cess stating that surcharge and education cess should be levied only in the cases where the non-resident vendors are residents of countries with which the DTAA allows withholding rate of more than 11.33%. ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS was not relevant. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing part relief on levy of surcharge and education cess stating that surcharge and education cess should be levied only in the cases where the non-resident vendors are residents of countries with which the DTAA allows withholding rate of more than 11.33%. ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS was not relevant. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing part relief on levy of surcharge and education cess stating that surcharge and education cess should be levied only in the cases where the non-resident vendors are residents of countries with which the DTAA allows withholding rate of more than 11.33%. ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS was not relevant. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing part relief on levy of surcharge and education cess stating that surcharge and education cess should be levied only in the cases where the non-resident vendors are residents of countries with which the DTAA allows withholding rate of more than 11.33%. ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS was not relevant. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing part relief on levy of surcharge and education cess stating that surcharge and education cess should be levied only in the cases where the non-resident vendors are residents of countries with which the DTAA allows withholding rate of more than 11.33%. ITA Nos.1215 to 1220/ Bang/2014