M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AND ETC. THESE ITAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2021, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE - 2 - ITA No.53 of 2024 TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.738/BANG/2022 DATED 14.06.2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016, ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

260A of IT Act and Section 100 of CPC do not define the expression substantial question of law. The Apex Court vide Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam reported in 251 ITR 84 SC is of the view that the word substantial qualifies the term question of law, it means a question having substance, essential, real or sound worth, important or considerable

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘1961 Act’) had framed the following question, as the substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the disallowance

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - 18 - 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that this order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity, for the reason, that the net proceeds of PSF-(SC) was held by it in fiduciary capacity and collected the same on behalf of Government of India which