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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3. “Whether on the facts of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal failed to appreciate that mentioning of wrong provision of law does not invalidate 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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SRI. PRABHULINGESHWAR SUGARS

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

disallowance of Rs.5,76,96,920/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) R/w Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in view of explanatory circular issued by the CBDT 4 vide Circular No.715 of 1995 dated 08.08.1995?” 2. Since the common question of law arises for consideration in both the matters, the same are heard together and disposed

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

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

3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice on 19.11.2010 to the assessee proposing to rectify the order of assessment dated 22.12.2009 on account of disallowance for an alleged failure by the assessee to deduct tax at the source under Section 194C

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

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

194C of the Act. 7. The assessment was completed by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at `69,76,80,360/- in view of the following disallowances

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

3 - for the purpose of carrying on its business by the assessee, do not amount to contract to carry out the work and accordingly, thehire charges paid is not covered by the provisions of Section 194C of the Income-Tax Act and accordingly, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax under Section 194C

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(2) and Explanation (C) to Section 194J otiose?” 3

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

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

3. The tribunal by an order dated 04.01.2017 inter alia by placing reliance on its order passed in the earlier Assessment Year with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment (TPA) on account of interest free loan provided to the subsidiary held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment is possible only in cases where comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into between two enterprises are established

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

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty

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 on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS as per provisions of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal is right in law in holding assessing authority is not right

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARRE KARKHANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. In these appeals, the assessee has assailed the validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 04.08.2015 by which, the Tribunal while placing reliance on the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of has remanded the matter to Adjudicating

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

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

3 Dated 27.12.2011 4 'IT Act’ for short I.T.A. No.60/2014 C/W I.T.A. No.59/2014 6 supply of Coaches and other activities such as design, testing, commissioning and training are only incidental to achieve the dominant object and therefore, it would constitute a sale of goods and hence, the provisions of Section 194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended

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

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

3 Dated 27.12.2011 4 'IT Act’ for short I.T.A. No.60/2014 C/W I.T.A. No.59/2014 6 supply of Coaches and other activities such as design, testing, commissioning and training are only incidental to achieve the dominant object and therefore, it would constitute a sale of goods and hence, the provisions of Section 194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended