SOUTH INDIA FREIGHT CARRIERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Years : 2015-16

section 194C (7), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise if the assessee complies with the provisions of section

SRI. K R SANTHOSH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

7. He thus confirmed the addition made by Ld.AO. 8. Aggrieved by order passed by Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 9. Ld.AR submitted that, only issue alleged by assessee is regarding disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source under section 194C

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

194C(3) of the Act no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are to be read together and thus after obtaining PAN from the transporters, the requisite particulars obtained from the transporters are furnished to the prescribed authority as provided u/s 194C(7), disallowance

M/S FINE BLANKING PVT. LTD.,,HUBLI vs. JCIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) can be made because of the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act. The AO did not agree with the claim of assessee for the following reasons:- “From the above it is evident that the assessee has incurred freight expenses to big transport companies. Clearly section 194C(6) & 194C(7

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201 and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Therefore, assessee's ground on this issue are to be allowed as the entire amount has been disallowed under the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) in the computation of income on the reason that

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT DR placed reliance on following decisions:  Decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of IBM India (P).Ltd. vs.ITO(TDS) reported in (2015) 59 taxmann.com 107  Decision of Hon’ble Cochin Tribunal in case of Agreenco Fiber Foam (P.) Ltd., vs.ITO (TDS) reported in (2013) 61 taxmann.com 155 The Ld.CIT DR submitted

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT DR placed reliance on following decisions:  Decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of IBM India (P).Ltd. vs.ITO(TDS) reported in (2015) 59 taxmann.com 107  Decision of Hon’ble Cochin Tribunal in case of Agreenco Fiber Foam (P.) Ltd., vs.ITO (TDS) reported in (2013) 61 taxmann.com 155 The Ld.CIT DR submitted

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

7. It is been submitted by the Ld.Counsel that the rebates are granted to the distributors on principal-to-principal basis on which TDS cannot be effectuated. It was also submitted that a provision has been created towards excess of commission and rebate that was reversed during the year on which no TDS liability arises. He relied on the details

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

7. It is been submitted by the Ld.Counsel that the rebates are granted to the distributors on principal-to-principal basis on which TDS cannot be effectuated. It was also submitted that a provision has been created towards excess of commission and rebate that was reversed during the year on which no TDS liability arises. He relied on the details

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

7. It is been submitted by the Ld.Counsel that the rebates are granted to the distributors on principal-to-principal basis on which TDS cannot be effectuated. It was also submitted that a provision has been created towards excess of commission and rebate that was reversed during the year on which no TDS liability arises. He relied on the details

M/S. SRI BALAJI PRASANNA TRAVELS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance made requires to be deleted. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee has paid the hire charges to the vehicle owners which falls under the purview of section 194C of the Act on which payment, assessee is liable to deduct TDS, which is not deducted by the assessee mainly the applicability of section

M/S TIMES VPL LTD. vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

disallow this expenditure of Rs.7,20,.00,000 on payments made by the assessee to BCCL for both Assessment Years 2008- 09 & 2009-10. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 : Liability to deduct tax at source u/s. 194C of the Act on payments to BCCL. 6.1 The main contention of the assessee is that it is not liable to deduct

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

7 of the appeal pertains to the non-fulfilment of satisfaction for making the assessment in pursuance to search as prescribed under section 132 of the Act. However, we note the same has not been pressed by the assessee. Hence, the impugned ground is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 34. In the result of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

A. KISORE RAO AND OTHERS vs. ITO,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed as indicated above

7 “ In the present case before us the assessee has deducted tax under Section 194C(2) of the Act being payments made to sub-contractors and it is not a case of non-deduction of tax or no deduction of tax as is the import of section 40a(ia) of the Act. But the revenue’s contention is that

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

7 of the appeal pertains to\nthe non-fulfilment of satisfaction for making the assessment in\npursuance to search as prescribed under section 132 of the Act.\nHowever, we note the same has not been pressed by the assessee.\nHence, the impugned ground is hereby dismissed as not pressed.\n34. In the result of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

7 of the appeal pertains to\nthe non-fulfilment of satisfaction for making the assessment in\npursuance to search as prescribed under section 132 of the Act.\nHowever, we note the same has not been pressed by the assessee.\nHence, the impugned ground is hereby dismissed as not pressed.\n34.\nIn the result of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ASHOK IRAPPA BANNUR ,BAGALKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

section 194C(6) and (7) of the Act, and in view of the above, the order of assessment was not erroneous, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT was not justified on facts, in appreciating that the details filed demonstrate that the information was available before the completion of the assessment proceedings and no disallowance

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

7 of the appeal pertains to\nthe non-fulfilment of satisfaction for making the assessment in\npursuance to search as prescribed under section 132 of the Act.\nHowever, we note the same has not been pressed by the assessee.\nHence, the impugned ground is hereby dismissed as not pressed.\n34.\nIn the result of the assessee is hereby partly allowed