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

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

ABB INDUSTRIES FZE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.2101/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Abb Industries Fze, C/O Abb India Ltd., 21St Floor, World Trade Centre, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram(West), Bengaluru-560 055. … Appellant Pan:Aajca 9766 H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 28/09/2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Relief a) The appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the above grounds and also all relief consequential thereto. b) The appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before

M/S ARROW ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assesssee’s appeals are dismissed, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross-Objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 271B and accordingly issued demand notices. Aggrieved by the finding that the Singapore branch had business connection in India and against the finding that the Singapore Company had a PE in India and determination of 40% of the total profits as attributable to the Indian operations etc, the assessee filed appeals before

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Permanent Establishment of Google Ireland Ltd under Article 5 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 7. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee was not remunerated at arm's length. 8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the Assessee was required to deduct tax at source from Rs.119

GOOGEL INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Permanent Establishment of Google Ireland Ltd under Article 5 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 7. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee was not remunerated at arm's length. 8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the Assessee was required to deduct tax at source from Rs.119

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra