INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 194C of IT Act are applicable in the present case and hence, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of AO should be restored. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of which copies are available

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

194C in respect of all such payments. 3.2. The lower authorities being in possession of details of TDS made in the form of Form 27A filed by the Appellant are not justified in disallowing Rs.69,11,858/- under section 40(a)(ia). 4. Without prejudice to the above, treating the differential value of VAT of Rs.2

M/S ABHILASH GARMENTS & ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 194C of the Act is applicable to the entire contract value by treating the same as composite contract. 3. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the claim of the appellant along with documents enclosed that contract entered by the appellant with M/s Enercon was a divisible contract and not composite or indivisible contract. 4. On the facts

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

Section u/s deducted u/s 201(1A ) deducted 40(a)(ia) 19,09,028 37,291 8,950 194C 9,73,15,961 19,46,319 19,91,005 38,424 9,222 1941 2,02,94,286 20,29,429 2,63,18,430 63,16,423 51,65,829 194J

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are to be read together and thus after obtaining PAN from the transporters, the requisite particulars obtained from the transporters are furnished to the prescribed authority as provided u/s 194C(7), disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) would get attracted.” Page 3 of 18 3. As the learned assessing officer as per form

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

194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi ) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;” 35. Under Section 194A of the Act which is a section appearing in Part XVIIB

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case