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

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.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C 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 Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

disallowing rebate and volume discount given to distributors under SNS model of distribution under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without appreciating that the provisions of TDS is not applicable on such expenses. The Hon'ble DRP and learned AO has erred in upholding that the provisions of section 194H

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

194H of the Act. Accordingly the Tribunal had deleted identical disallowances made in the hands of Corporation Bank. Accordingly he directed the AO to delete the disallowance of payments made to NFS and Cash Tree. 15. In respect of payment of Rs.96.87 lakhs made to Visa International, the ld CIT(A) restored the issue to the file

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

194H of the Act. Accordingly the Tribunal had deleted identical disallowances made in the hands of Corporation Bank. Accordingly he directed the AO to delete the disallowance of payments made to NFS and Cash Tree. 15. In respect of payment of Rs.96.87 lakhs made to Visa International, the ld CIT(A) restored the issue to the file

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

Section\n\n194A, 194H & 194J of the Act respectively. In the event of non compliance of the said provision, a disallowance

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance made under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act on ATM charges of other Banks even though Section 194H

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H of the Act. 4.5. However

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H of the Act. 4.5. However

MRS. LOBO CRYSTAL,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194H of the Act, the AO made disallowance of Rs.1,55,78,270 (56,44,270 + 99,34,000). 7. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO on the above disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The assessee has filed additional evidence at pages 107 to 132 as follows

MRS. LOBO CRYSTAL,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194H of the Act, the AO made disallowance of Rs.1,55,78,270 (56,44,270 + 99,34,000). 7. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO on the above disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The assessee has filed additional evidence at pages 107 to 132 as follows

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

194H of the Act under the head commission which is completely wrong. The learned Counsel further referred to Paper Book Page No. 22 which is submission made before AO in which it has been clarified that Rs.12 lakhs is included in the turnover of Rs.24,50,000/- and assessee is engaged in civil construction contract. After verifying all these facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU vs. UNITEDLEX INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS I-RUNWAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

section 194H of the Act could be applied only when the amount is credited to the agent account. (Our emphasis supplied) Based on the above discussions, the Assessee submitted that there was no requirement to deduct tax on provision for professional fee as at 31 March 2015 and therefore such provision ought not to be disallowed

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

194H of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) held that the above said decision shall apply to the facts of the present case also. He further held that the AO did not specify the section under which the TDS is liable to be deducted by the assessee. Accordingly he deleted the disallowance

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

section 201(1) of the Act and failed the mandatory requirement to deduct TDS on this payment. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore, upheld the disallowance made by the Ld.AO. 13. At the time of hearing the instant appeals, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue may be remitted to the file of Ld.AO for verification

M/S. KNOWLEDGE HUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Circle - 4(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Knowledge Hut The Deputy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner No. 10, 14Th Main Road, Of Income Tax, Hosur Sarjapura Road, Nfac, Bangalore – 560 102. Delhi. Vs. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2023

section 201(1) of the Act and failed the mandatory requirement to deduct TDS on this payment. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore, upheld the disallowance made by the Ld.AO. 13. At the time of hearing the instant appeals, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue may be remitted to the file of Ld.AO for verification

EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act is unwarranted. 7. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below and vehemently submitted that in the present case the nature of the expenses are identified, the parties are identified & the amount of expenditure are also fairly estimated then the question of non-deduction

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

disallowance of TDS credit. On going through the Form 26AS (Placed at page 4-16 of PB), we also take note of the fact that the TDS have been deducted u/s 194A i.e. on Interest on security deposits, U/s 194H i.e. on Commission or brokerage & u/s 194Q i.e. on payment of certain sum for purchase of goods. Therefore, we find