INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 12.03.2015 deeming the assessee to be an ‘assessee-in-default’ for non deduction of tax at source on which provision created to the extent of Rs.3

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 12.03.2015 deeming the assessee to be an ‘assessee-in-default’ for non deduction of tax at source on which provision created to the extent of Rs.3

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

disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The Ld.AO initiated proceedings under Section 201 of the Act and passed an order dated 12.03.2015 deeming the assessee to be an ‘assessee-in-default’ for non deduction of tax at source on which provision created to the extent of Rs.3

M/S KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Kanyakaparameshwari Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Limited, Income-Tax, K. R. Circle, Circle – 1[1], Mysuru – 570 001. Mysuru. Pan : Aacas 1220 M Appellant Respondent

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous because of the specific exemption available to the assessee, a Co-operative Society, under section 194A

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), HUBLI vs. GENERAL MANAGAR,, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross-objection of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P. Boazi.T.A No.1191 To 1194/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 To 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer (Tds) 3Rd Floor, Cr Bldg.Annexe, Navanagar, Hubli-580 025 .. Appellant Vs. The Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gf, Urban Bank Building, 1 Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubli 580 020 .. Respondent Pan : Aaaah0120P C.O.Nos. 25 To 28/Bang/2015 In I.T.A No.1191 To 1194/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 To 2012-13) The Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gf, Urban Bank Building, 1 Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubli 580 020 .. Cross-Objector Pan : Aaaah0120P Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) 3Rd Floor, Cr Bldg.Annexe, Navanagar, Hubli-580 025 .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G.V.Desai, Ca 1

section 51 of that Act); (b) ten thousand rupees, where the payer is a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking; (c) ten thousand rupees, on any deposit with post office under any scheme framed by the Central Government and notified by it in this behalf; and (d) five thousand rupees in any other case

M/S THE RADDI SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed, while the stay petitions are dismissed

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

section 51 of that Act); (b) ten thousand rupees, where the payer is a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking; (c) ten thousand rupees, on any deposit with post office under any scheme framed by the Central Government and notified by it in this behalf; and (d) five thousand rupees in any other case

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 7 of 20 7. Ground No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability of the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the I T Act 1961 Rs. 6,98,06.298;- holding that

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

sections. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the yearend provision for expenses. 8. One more contention raised by Ld A.R is that the assessee has voluntarily disallowed the amount of yearend provision u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) of the Act and hence there is no requirement to raise any demand

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 is with regard totaxing of the profit from the sale of shares of Can Fin Homes Ltd./CARE Ltd as business income instead of income from capital

M/S. SUJATHA NARAYANAN & ASSOCIATES,HASSAN vs. ACIT, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was rightly done, as the assessee failed to deduct tax in view of the provisions of Sec 194H. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that exception clauses provided as per Sec 194A(3) has not been provided to Section

DCIT, HASSAN vs. M/S SUJATHA NARAYAN & ASSOCIATES, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was rightly done, as the assessee failed to deduct tax in view of the provisions of Sec 194H. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that exception clauses provided as per Sec 194A(3) has not been provided to Section

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

194A is further qualified by the provisions of section 197A(1A) wherein if a person furnishes a declaration in writing in prescribed Form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that tax on his estimated total income is to be included in computing his total income will be nil there is no need to deduct tax. The assessee

S N BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee- company is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. S.N.Builders & Developers, No.4, 2Nd Floor, Elephant Rock Road, Above Kalayan Jewellers, Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Bengaluru-560 011. Pan: Abefs 8850 P … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bangalore-9, Bangalore, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide the Finance Act, 2008, with effect from April 1, 2008, sub-section (6) has been inserted in section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from April

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

194A, Section 194B, Section 194BB, Section 194C, Section 194D, Section 194E, Section 194EE, Section IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 38 194F, Section 194G, Section 194H, Section 194-I, Section 194J, Section 194K,Section 194L, Section 195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

194A, Section 194B, Section 194BB, Section 194C, Section 194D, Section 194E, Section 194EE, Section IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 38 194F, Section 194G, Section 194H, Section 194-I, Section 194J, Section 194K,Section 194L, Section 195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

disallow the claim of the assessee cannot be sustained and was rightly repelled by the Ld. CIT(A) whose view to accept the claim of assessee is based on the accepted judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (supra); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Ltd. (supra

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

194A on the NOTIONAL INTEREST of Rs.11,51,66,881/- and Rs.11,47,72,093/- respectively for the ITA No.1540/Bang/2018 & M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd., Bellary Page 4 of 42 assessment years, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The banks have remitted the TDS made to the account of the assessee, even though the assessee was prohibited from operating