M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance having relied upon the para 6 of the Circular No. 619 dated 04.12.1991. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions as raised before the CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance having relied upon the para 6 of the Circular No. 619 dated 04.12.1991. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions as raised before the CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

disallowance having relied upon the para 6 of the Circular No. 619 dated 04.12.1991. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions as raised before the CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

section 194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, no disallowance could be made. 49. The ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.1248/Bang/2014 where the Tribunal by order dated

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section

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

section 194I were applicable in the appellant’s case. However, as the appellant had not deducted TDS on payments above Rs.30,000/-, the A.O. disallowed

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

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer without giving an opportunity to the learned assessing officer to verify the same. 113. The learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that CIT – A has considered the submission of the taxpayer before the learned assessing officer and on verification of the same detail deleted the addition following is on order in assessee

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer without giving an opportunity to the learned assessing officer to verify the same. 113. The learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that CIT – A has considered the submission of the taxpayer before the learned assessing officer and on verification of the same detail deleted the addition following is on order in assessee

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) for sum of Rs.7,87,93,536/-sum of Rs.7,87,93,536/- claimed towards finance of cars by holding that assessing authority did not invoke the provisions of section 194I

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) for sum of Rs.7,87,93,536/-sum of Rs.7,87,93,536/- claimed towards finance of cars by holding that assessing authority did not invoke the provisions of section 194I

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallowance of deduction expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. In this scenario the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Company would not be of any assistance to the revenue unless the material aspects are considered with respect to section

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

disallowance of INR.10,518/-. Consequently, interest of INR.1,890/- was also incorrectly levied. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the stand taken by the Assessee required examination as the tax withholding certificates now furnished as additional evidence were not provided to authorities below. 9.2. We have perused the tax withholding certificates filed as additional evidence and the same provide for deduction

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), then, the same cannot be subject to the TDS provisions again so as to demand tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A), rendering provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act otiose. 10. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

M/S PARRY SUGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be restricted to the amount remaining payable as at the year end. With regard to the assessee’s appeal, the Hon’ble High Court noted the fact that the assessee has claimed harvesting expenses as deduction in its profit and loss account. Further the assessee has contended that the Contract entered by it with

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 194I is not talking about only renting of the property but also renting of machinery, plant or equipment. Further, with respect to the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- received as sub letting charges at a trade exhibition is already shown by the Assessee by netting off the expenditure. Therefore, there is a double addition of all the above

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of lease rentals paid on equipment and motor cars. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are as follows:- “6.1 The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount of Rs 25,500,765 and Rs 77,520,788 pertaining to lease rentals paid by the Appellant