M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

disallowing the expenditure pertaining to other entities in the hands of the Appellant without making a prima facie analysis of whether the Appellant is a party to the transaction or not. 8.6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs.6,35,10,000 as interest on Rs.43,80,00,000 considering

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

172 of the PB] The said submission was not accepted and AO disallowed Rs. 12,63,443 under section, 14A read

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing the expense. 33.6 We further note that identical issue was recently examined by this tribunal in the case of Ariba Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 172 taxmann.com 304. The tribunal after examination of detailed decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The finding of the tribunal is extracted as under: 25. We have heard

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

disallowing Annual Maintenance Contract ("AMC") expenses of Rs. 11,28,69,585 and software expenses of Rs. 1,48,08,126 under section 40(a)(i)I 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in facts, in not granting the benefit

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the claim of the assessee for both the years giving different reasons as discussed in preceding paragraph and the learned CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the AO. 10.1 Before going into the issue on hand, we proceed to discuss the brief history of section 80JJAA of the Act. The provision was introduced by the Finance

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the claim of the assessee for both the years giving different reasons as discussed in preceding paragraph and the learned CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the AO. 10.1 Before going into the issue on hand, we proceed to discuss the brief history of section 80JJAA of the Act. The provision was introduced by the Finance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

Disallowance of deduction under section 32AC:- Page 2 of 18 2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the claim of deduction under section 32AC of the Act amounting to Rs. 172

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where TDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and added to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-)” 9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate authority relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Page 9 ITA/IT

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where TDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and added to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-)” 9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate authority relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Page 9 ITA/IT

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where TDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and added to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-)” 9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate authority relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Page 9 ITA/IT

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where TDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and added to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-)” 9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate authority relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Page 9 ITA/IT

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where TDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and added to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-)” 9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate authority relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Page 9 ITA/IT

SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act held not disallowable]. (2) Asstt. CIT v. Alfa Rubber Inds. [2008] 172 Taxman

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J\nof Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where\nTDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and\nadded to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-)\"\n9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate\nauthority relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court\nin the case of Samsung Electronics

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the ITOs so that further litigation on this account may be avoided.” 14.1 In light of the above judicial development, the ld.AR prayed to kindly accept the additional legal ground of appeal

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J\nof Rs. 34,20,369/- representing software purchases where\nTDS was not effected, which works is disallowed and\nadded to total income. (Addition:Rs.321,20,369/-”\n9. On preferring appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the first appellate\nauthority relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court\nPage 8\nITA/IT

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

disallowed the claim of the assessee for both the\nyears giving different reasons as discussed in preceding paragraph and\nthe learned CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the AO.\n\n10.1 Before going into the issue on hand, we proceed to discuss the\nbrief history of section 80JJAA of the Act. The provision was introduced\nby the Finance

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

Section 35D, foreign exchange fluctuations, depreciation on computer software and working out deduction u/s. 10AA as against assessee’s claims. Another issue on non-granting of foreign tax credit is also involved. Aggrieved on the DRP’s orders, assessee is in appeal and raised as many as 32 grounds. Likewise, Revenue is also aggrieved on the DRP’s directions allowing

M/S. VOLVO GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VOLVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

172 are applicable in such case, the provisions for tax deduction at source contained in section 194C and 195 are not applicable to such companies. 6. Provision created for 90,01,810 Provision aggregating to 73-75 parties covered under Rs.90,01,810 had been created in section 194C(6) of respect of contractors for goods the carriages