TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 194C of the Act on the cost of advertisement space, the amount requires to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the notice

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

Section 194C(3) viz., disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia)? 3 ii. Whether on facts and in law the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

disallowance if the order passed in sum and substance meets the legal requirements then it is said to be a valid order and appellate authorities has power to either enhance or reduce tax liability?”. I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 12 11. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submits that: 11.1. The deduction under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: (i) on payments made to KPTCL, without deducting tax at source under section194J of the Act on transmission charges and SLDC charges `113,05,08,348/- (ii) on payments towards composite contracts without deducting tax at source as required under Section 194C

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. JANANI TOURS & RESORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 194C of the Act when the - 6 - controversy was with resp[ect to the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 6. We have

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the depreciation claimed on software, which was treated as royalty under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that decision of this court in WIPRO LTD. supra in I.T.A.No.507/2002 dated 25.08.2010 does not deal with the issue of royalty. From perusal of the aforesaid decision, the tribunal has decided the aforesaid issue in favour

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

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

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act even though the interpretation in the Tribunal’s judgment rendered provisions under section 194C

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

disallowances made under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and treated the assessee as assessee in default in respect of the 6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

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; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S APIGEE TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 194c of the act” and the assessing officer had rightly disallowed a sum of Rs.5,14,595/- bearing an amount

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARRE KARKHANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended that assessee was not aware as to how the consortium partners had utilized the 10% of the Contract amount given as ‘Mobilization Amount’. 6. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with BMRCL’s reply, treated it as ‘an assessee in default’ and levied tax and interest thereon under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended that assessee was not aware as to how the consortium partners had utilized the 10% of the Contract amount given as ‘Mobilization Amount’. 6. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with BMRCL’s reply, treated it as ‘an assessee in default’ and levied tax and interest thereon under Section