M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

36(1)(iii), it was stated by the AO that the disallowance of Rs. 20,11,358 will Page 14 of 17 be enforced based on the adverse findings (if any) by the appellate authorities at a later stage. 23. On further appeal by the assessee the learned CIT(A) held that mere furnishing the certificate in Annexure A without

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid during the previous year, or in the subsequent year before the expiry of the time prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 200 : Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or, has been deducted

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

36,103/- ought to be set aside. 23.4 In this regard, she placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (ITA Nos. 1151/Bang/2015 and ITA No.1644/Bang/2014 for assessment year 2012-13 vide common order dated 25.03.2022) wherein this Tribunal held that the Assessee cannot be treated as an ‘assessee in default’ under Section 201(1

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

36,47,579/ - The Ld.Counsel submitted that the assessee suo moto disallowed the total provision created of Rs158,25,21,633/-. The Ld.Counsel relied on the copy of the computation of income filed for the assessment year 2012-13 which is anexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is submitted that the provision of Rs.40

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

36,47,579/ - The Ld.Counsel submitted that the assessee suo moto disallowed the total provision created of Rs158,25,21,633/-. The Ld.Counsel relied on the copy of the computation of income filed for the assessment year 2012-13 which is anexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is submitted that the provision of Rs.40

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

36,47,579/ - The Ld.Counsel submitted that the assessee suo moto disallowed the total provision created of Rs158,25,21,633/-. The Ld.Counsel relied on the copy of the computation of income filed for the assessment year 2012-13 which is anexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is submitted that the provision of Rs.40

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

36 of 202 Agreement with foreign Countries or specified territories: 90. (1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,— (a) for the granting of relief in respect of— (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

36 of 202 Agreement with foreign Countries or specified territories: 90. (1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,— (a) for the granting of relief in respect of— (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36 (b) has not been utilised before the expiry of the period specified in sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), the amount not so utilised, shall be deemed to be the profits,— (i) in a case referred to in clause (a), in the year in which the amount was so utilised; or (ii) in a case

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36 (b) has not been utilised before the expiry of the period specified in sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), the amount not so utilised, shall be deemed to be the profits,— (i) in a case referred to in clause (a), in the year in which the amount was so utilised; or (ii) in a case

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36 (b) has not been utilised before the expiry of the period specified in sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), the amount not so utilised, shall be deemed to be the profits,— (i) in a case referred to in clause (a), in the year in which the amount was so utilised; or (ii) in a case

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36 (b) has not been utilised before the expiry of the period specified in sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), the amount not so utilised, shall be deemed to be the profits,— (i) in a case referred to in clause (a), in the year in which the amount was so utilised; or (ii) in a case

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

36,83,320 and the assessee company had not deducted taxes on an amount of Rs.1,08,79,768. In a recent case of M/s. Wipro Ltd, (TS-701-HC- 2011) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had held that the payments made to Gartner are not eligible to be deducted as the assessee company has not made

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

36,83,320 and the assessee company had not deducted taxes on an amount of Rs.1,08,79,768. In a recent case of M/s. Wipro Ltd, (TS-701-HC- 2011) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had held that the payments made to Gartner are not eligible to be deducted as the assessee company has not made

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

36(1)(viia) of the Act. Page 19 of 48 11. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Cross Objection No.52/Bang/2011 (Assessment year 2008-09): 12. The cross objection is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

36(1)(viia) of the Act. Page 19 of 48 11. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Cross Objection No.52/Bang/2011 (Assessment year 2008-09): 12. The cross objection is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

36(1)(viia) of the Act. Page 19 of 48 11. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Cross Objection No.52/Bang/2011 (Assessment year 2008-09): 12. The cross objection is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred