PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS attracts section 40(a)(ia) of the Act?". 2. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, by an order passed today, the substantial question of law was re framed as under: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in holding that expense of Rs.624,983,348/- to Subex Technologies

NICE LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. The controversy involved in the present case, as informed by the learned Counsel for the parties stands concluded on account of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER

M/S.KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

195 of the Act wherein obligation of a person to deduct tax at source would be applicable to the ‘income chargeable under the Act’. Absence of such words ‘chargeable to tax’ under the provisions of Section 194-A of the Act would not empower the authorities to 25 invoke the provisions of Sections

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

6. Substantial question of law No.3 reads as under; "3. Whether tribunal was correct in confirming the common order passed by first respondent deeming that appellant is to be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that payments made by the assessee were in the nature of "royalty payments

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

TDS ought to have been deducted under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). Assessee was treated as ‘assessee in default’ under Section 201 of the Act. The CIT(A)4 confirmed AO’s order. Assessee challenged the said order before the ITAT5. By the impugned order, the ITAT has allowed the appeal holding that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident and had claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident and had claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had purchased the software from non 9 resident and had claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section

M/S ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 29

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

195 of the Act and failure to deduct TDS the provisions of Section 40[a][i] of the Act is attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case?" ITA 113/2021 3 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this appeal has been

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS as required under section 195 of the Act without appreciating that section 40 starts with a non-obstante clause overruling the section 30 to 38 of the Act and therefore the claim of depreciation on the capitalized assets is also subject to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act? 2. We have heard the learned counsel

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AD2PRO MEDIA SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

TDS does not arise because the US Company does not have any income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. Therefore, assessee cannot be considered as a defaulter under Section 195 of the Act. ITA No. 232/2020 C/W ITAs No. 234/2020, 235/2020, 238/2020, 241/2020, 242/2020, 243/2020 16 6

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized for a sum of Rs.8,71,32,988/- and the amount of TDS and interest on the aforesaid amount under Section 201(1A) was computed at Rs.14,18,327/- and Rs.25,195

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

6. The judgment in R/Tax Appeal No.290 of 2018 decided on 09.04.2018 (Principal 7 Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot-1 Vs. Nova Technocast Pvt. Ltd.) 7. The undisputed facts reveal that M/s. Puma sports India Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Austria Puma Dassler GmbH. The assessee is engaged in the trading of sports gear mainly footwear, apparel and accessories

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

6. Learned Senior counsel Sri. A. Shankar for the appellant - assessee submitted that the impugned service charges do not constitute income in the hands of recipient - KIADB and hence the question of TDS requirement does not arise. The rate of service charges - 8 - has not reached finality and the matter is still pending before the High Power committee of Karnataka

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

6 - ITA No. 11 of 2022 c/w ITA No. 12 of 2022, ITA No. 14 of 2022 & ITA No. 15 of 2022 3. The assessee-respondent claims to be a Company involved in business of dealing in home décor products. It has placed advertisements in several social medias such as Facebook, Amazon Web services and Rocket Science Group

APOLLO TYRES LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

6. He therefore submitted that on its own force and per se the provision made in India-Finland Treaty, which was entered into between India-Finland on 19.4.2010, which was made effective from 1.4.2011, vide its Article 12.5, provide that the fees for technical services, if such services are rendered and paid in a Contracting State, viz., in Netherlands

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 11.08.2008, inter alia held that non resident company is a service provider and is not an agent of the assessee and the services rendered by non resident company have to be treated as technical services and are squarely covered under the scope and ambit of Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

TDS and consequential interest. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 30.03.2010 inter alia held that 7 computation of interest under Section 234B is required to be re computed and the matter was remitted. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal