ACIT, HUBLI vs. M/S GUMBI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

194J of the Act, and therefore Page 11 of 15 the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source @ 10% on the payment. The AO therefore invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed a sum of Rs.4,68

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

68 taxmann.com 8) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009)(310 ITR 320) were preferred over the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd (supra), in the absence of any decision rendered on this issue

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,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

68,466/- under section 40(a), for non ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 18 deduction of TDS. Ld.AR submitted that software expenses were incurred/paid during FY 2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. He submitted that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd reported in [2010] 320 ITR 209 was set aside

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

194J of the Act. 12. Facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 585,30,20,535 towards purchase of software. Out of the said sum, the assessee had initially not deducted tax at source on a sum of Rs. 4,67,690/- 13. The AO in his order

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

194J of the Act. 12. Facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 585,30,20,535 towards purchase of software. Out of the said sum, the assessee had initially not deducted tax at source on a sum of Rs. 4,67,690/- 13. The AO in his order

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

PRAVESH KOTHARI L/H OF SOHANRAJ KHIMRAJ KOTHARI ,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3, HUBLI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

section 194J. 2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance of Rs. 48,000 should be deleted in entirety. 2.5Without prejudice, the disallowance, if any, should be restricted to 30% of the impugned payment. 3.Addition of HUF income:- The learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,68

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

194J / 195 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Page 4 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 18. Without prejudice, software payments made to residents totally amounting to Rs. 30,23,602was not liable for TDS under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to section

VENA ENERGY KN WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

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

section 194J and hence there cannot be any disallowance towards the same. 27. With regard to the service fees we notice that the disallowance of depreciation and disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is done based on the contention that the agreement between the assessee and payees are not furnished and on the statement recorded during search proceedings. We also notice

VENA ENERGY MH WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

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

section 194J and hence there cannot be any disallowance towards the same. 27. With regard to the service fees we notice that the disallowance of depreciation and disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is done based on the contention that the agreement between the assessee and payees are not furnished and on the statement recorded during search proceedings. We also notice

VENA ENERGY FATANPUR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

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

section 194J and hence there cannot be any disallowance towards the same. 27. With regard to the service fees we notice that the disallowance of depreciation and disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is done based on the contention that the agreement between the assessee and payees are not furnished and on the statement recorded during search proceedings. We also notice

VENA ENERGY PATAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

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

section 194J and hence there cannot be any disallowance towards the same. 27. With regard to the service fees we notice that the disallowance of depreciation and disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is done based on the contention that the agreement between the assessee and payees are not furnished and on the statement recorded during search proceedings. We also notice

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

68,00,000 ii) Disallowance of claim of provision for bad Rs.415,26,46,585 and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) iii) Disallowance of Depreciation on AFS & Rs.279,12,50,807 HFT category of investments. iv) Disallowance of Depreciation on HTM Rs.507,15,29,634 category of investments. v) Appreciation on investments not offered Rs.366

ABHINAVASRI VIVIDODESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA KANAKAGIRI ,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , KOPPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

section 40(a)(ia) for not withholding the tax on audit fees debited to profit and loss account is concerned the same is not covered by the provisions of 194A(3) of Act. Therefore the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on Audit fees paid. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.14,100/- is confirmed.” 4. Being

BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

68,977.23 respectively, there can be no disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act in view of the proviso to Sec.40(a)(i) which lays down that “where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or, has been deducted in the previous year but paid in any subsequent year after the expiry

M/S SUNQUEST INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevanshri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.552/Bang/2015

68 SOT 259 (Mumb.) URO supports the plea of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision, we hold that there can be no separate determination of ALP of international transaction of realization of sale proceeds with extended credit period as it is only incidental to transaction of sale. The addition made by the TPO and confirmed IT(TP)A No.552/B/15

ALTRAN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

68,27,840 6,81,63,783 40,49,91,623 Operating Cost (exchange loss & 3,41,903,782 7,13,22,931 413,226,713 interest) Finance Cost 763602 159291 922893 Less: Loss on sale of 6237 1301 7538 fixed assets Operating Cost 34,11,33,943 7,11,62,339 412296282 Operating Profit