IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

195 for payment of tax to seconder. Thus, the claim of Assessee that it is being subject to double taxaxation is not acceptable. 22.4 Further as discussed above TDS u/s 192 is the liability of the SECONDER which is done by M/s Applied Materials India Private Ltd for convenience. Hence, the TDS is done u/s.192 of the Act on behalf

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

property rights (IPRs). It was also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that :- (i) the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.227/Bang/2010 has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any intangible and hence does not have

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

property rights (IPRs). It was also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that :- (i) the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.227/Bang/2010 has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any intangible and hence does not have

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

property or information used on services utilized for the purposes income was outside the purview and scope of Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and consequently, not liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 6.2.2 In support of the contention that royalty is chargeable to tax only on actual payments under the DTAA and hence liability

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act lays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The income of the Assessee in the present case would fall within

NICE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,USA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(2)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph-4 of this judgment. 170. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

195 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi :& Ors (1979) 4 SCC 303 3. Collector, Land Acquisition & Ors. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107” 5. The ld. DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay as according to him, there was no reasonable cause for the delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

195 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi :& Ors (1979) 4 SCC 303 3. Collector, Land Acquisition & Ors. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107” 5. The ld. DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay as according to him, there was no reasonable cause for the delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD., BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

195 would not arise on reimbursement of expenses. Instead the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded on extraneous considerations while relying on case laws decided in different context and not applicable to the facts of the Appellant. ITA No.1141 & 1115/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 18 11. The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts, in failing to quash

M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

195 would not arise on reimbursement of expenses. Instead the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded on extraneous considerations while relying on case laws decided in different context and not applicable to the facts of the Appellant. ITA No.1141 & 1115/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 18 11. The Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts, in failing to quash

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

property details to real estate buyers. Both of these entities, therefore, qualify as “carrying out any work” and payments to them are governed by Section 194C. 47. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 48. The learned AR before us submitted that the payments were made for standard online platforms