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

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 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

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

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

permanent establishments of such foreign vendors in India. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing officer and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not adopting the beneficial provisions under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements. 4.4. The learned AO and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not appreciating that payments for annual maintenance contracts shall ITA Nos.1113

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

permanent establishments of such foreign vendors in India. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing officer and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not adopting the beneficial provisions under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements. 4.4. The learned AO and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not appreciating that payments for annual maintenance contracts shall ITA Nos.1113

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

establishment of such\nnon-resident telecom operators in India. Thereafter Hon'ble High\nCourt after verifying the facts of the case having regards to the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis\nCentre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 432 ITR\n471 observed and held as under:\n\"12. We have carefully considered

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

establishment of such\nnon-resident telecom operators in India. Thereafter Hon'ble High\nCourt after verifying the facts of the case having regards to the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis\nCentre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 432 ITR\n471 observed and held as under:\n“12. We have carefully considered

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceeding had to be completed. Accordingly, the AO IT(IT)A Nos.191 to 194/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 43 passed the draft assessment order making additions towards royalty income as under:- Asst. Year Amount

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceeding had to be completed. Accordingly, the AO IT(IT)A Nos.191 to 194/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 43 passed the draft assessment order making additions towards royalty income as under:- Asst. Year Amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 was initiated by the Ld.AO and consequently by and under the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, disallowance of sales commission paid to MSI was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. However, the order was made reversed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 was initiated by the Ld.AO and consequently by and under the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, disallowance of sales commission paid to MSI was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. However, the order was made reversed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 was initiated by the Ld.AO and consequently by and under the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, disallowance of sales commission paid to MSI was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. However, the order was made reversed

GOOGLE LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOOGLE INC.),CALIFORNIA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 167/Bang/2021 - Ay : 2010-11) It(It)A No. 688/Bang/2022 - Ay : 2012-13)

reassessment proceedings the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price (ALP) of the payments received by the assessee. The TPO held that the international transactions with the Associated Enterprises (AE) were at ALP and hence no adjustment is required. However, the AO observed that the assessee company received payments from GIPL

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment proceedings. 3.4 The revenue has sought to place reliance upon the decision in the case of Abhishek Jain v. Income-tax officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11844 OF 2016 JUNE 1, 2018, for the proposition that the jurisdiction cannot be questioned after a month of issuance

IBM CANADA 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

permanent\nestablishment'. Article 5(2)(k) describes the expression 'permanent establishment'\nand furnishing of services including managerial services, other than those taxable\nunder Section 13 within a Contracting State by an enterprise through employees or\nother personnel. Article 7 deals with business profits and provides that profits of a\nbusiness of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

permanent movement there were continuous flow of his hard-earned investments through his NRE Bank accounts held at various Banks; State Bank of India Malpe Branch, Bhatkal Urban Bank etc. These amounts were further got infused in the partnership firm Yashaswi as well as in immovable/Movable assets. The assessee had dedicated his full time in Partnership Firm upon return from

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

permanent movement there were continuous flow of his hard-earned investments through his NRE Bank accounts held at various Banks; State Bank of India Malpe Branch, Bhatkal Urban Bank etc. These amounts were further got infused in the partnership firm Yashaswi as well as in immovable/Movable assets. The assessee had dedicated his full time in Partnership Firm upon return from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened