M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

68,16,247 33. The assessee has raised ground No.6 as follows:- “6. That the learned DRP has erred, in law and in facts, in upholding the approach of the learned AO/learned TPO in accepting/ rejecting certain companies with respect to the Contract Manufacturing segment based on unreasonable comparability criteria. Erroneously rejected by the learned TPO/ learned DRP, sought

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

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

194H. We are of the view that the agreements with distributors require examination to verify the claim of the assessee. We therefore remit this issue to the AO for verification of the agreements which the assessee has entered into with the distributors in relation to discount/rebate transactions and decide the allowability based on the ratio laid down

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

194H. We are of the view that the agreements with distributors require examination to verify the claim of the assessee. We therefore remit this issue to the AO for verification of the agreements which the assessee has entered into with the distributors in relation to discount/rebate transactions and decide the allowability based on the ratio laid down

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted.\niii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/-\nand commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is of the view that the assessee has not complied with the provisions\n\nof the section 194J & 194H

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSURU vs. SHRI. H OMKARAPPA (HUF), SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. H. Omkarappa, (Huf), Ward - 1, #3, A Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga Sagar Road, Shivamogga. Pan : Aabhh 1124 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

section 68 is not applicable. 9. An alternate submission was made before the CIT(A) that the difference of Rs.1,42,41,813/- was explained as receipt for debtors for earlier sales. The learned assessing officer accepted the explanation of the assessee on the ground that the above sum was credited to the accounts of the debtors

DELL INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

194H. We are of the view that the agreements with distributors require examination to verify the claim of the assessee. We therefore remit this issue to the AO for verification of the agreements which the assessee has entered into with the distributors in relation to discount/rebate transactions and decide the allowability based on the ratio laid down

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

194H; (ii)"fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J ; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

194H. Since the assessee has not deducted the tax at source, the AO made a disallowance of 30% of the amount debited to the P&L account amounting to Rs.11,90,68,086 (i.e. 30% of Rs.39,68,93,620) u/s. 40(a)(ia). The DRP confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 6. Before us, the ld. AR submitted

M/S SAHNEY COMMUTATORS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

68,960/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the expenditure claimed by the assessee under the head repairs are related to repair expenses only and they are in the form of spare parts, labour charges, etc. He submitted that none of the above said items could work independently and in any case

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

68 but no invoices Biocon. Accordingly, since no received from the amount was ultimately found to be vendors payable, there was no requirement to deduct TDS and hence, the provisions of section 201 were not applicable (refer Para 10.3 of Biocon). Page 7 of 31 3. Provision created for 9,46,447 The aforesaid payments pertain to 69 payments

BIOCON LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

68,91,563/- u/s 201(1). He also charged interest of Rs.40,53,975/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the expenses aggregating to Rs.22,69,28,947/- are provisions made at the yearend at the time of finalisation of accounts for known expenses and losses (hereinafter called “yearend provisions

THE MALNAD ARECANUT SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

Section Particulars Amount (Rs.) 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Interest 72,270/- (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) 194H of the Act Commission 36,699/- 194Q Purchase 2,47,866/- 194I(b) 68

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

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68. The other issue that remains for adjudication in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is regarding disallowance of year-end provisions raised in ground Nos. 9 to 17. 69. The brief facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S HERBAL LIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68. The other issue that remains for adjudication in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is regarding disallowance of year-end provisions raised in ground Nos. 9 to 17. 69. The brief facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68. The other issue that remains for adjudication in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is regarding disallowance of year-end provisions raised in ground Nos. 9 to 17. 69. The brief facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

68. The other issue that remains for adjudication in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is regarding disallowance of year-end provisions raised in ground Nos. 9 to 17. 69. The brief facts are that the assessee had created some year-end provisions, of which an amount of Rs.15,31,44,903/- was liable to tax deduction

M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the A.O., the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 194H of the Act and having failed to deduct tax at source, the expenses has to be disallowed. The details of the disallowance made for each of the assessment year are as follows:- 9 ITA No.620/B/2017 & Ors. M/s.GMR Hyderabad International

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the A.O., the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 194H of the Act and having failed to deduct tax at source, the expenses has to be disallowed. The details of the disallowance made for each of the assessment year are as follows:- 9 ITA No.620/B/2017 & Ors. M/s.GMR Hyderabad International