ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

144C(14) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the following grounds: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant.) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) - Circle

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

144C(3) of the Income\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(5). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. c) Panel and Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in not demonstrating that the motive of the Appellant was to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in the international transaction, which is a pre- requisite condition to make any adjustment under

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”); (b) Re-computation of deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act; (c) Non-grant of credit of entire TDS

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”); (b) Re-computation of deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act; (c) Non-grant of credit of entire TDS

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

144C dt.24.12.2018, with Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.171,04,84,800/- and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.1,37,500/-, disallowance under Section 80G of the Act of Rs.1,12,60,750/- and disallowance under Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act for secondment of employees payment for non-deduction of TDS

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

144C of the Act. 33.5 Moreover, the disallowance of gratuity expenses was factually and legally flawed. Section 43B allows deduction for gratuity expenses paid before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has provided evidence that the payment was made on 15th September 2020, i.e., before the due date, and the same

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 144C(8) of the Act. 11.2 ICRA Online Ltd., (‘ICRA’) was selected as a comparable by the TPO despite objections of the assessee to its inclusion on the ground that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee. However, the DRP has directed ‘ICRA’s exclusion from the set of comparables on the ground that it fails

M/S YASKAWA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.17/A, 2Nd Main, Electronic Income-Tax, City, Phase – I, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 100. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacy 4408 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 O R D E R

TDS of Rs. 9,37,869/-. IT(TP)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 7 4. Grounds 1 to 8 (Transfer Pricing Issues) and 9(b) – Corporate Tax 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that vide letter dated 21.03.2019, the assessee has sought withdrawal of appeal filed under section

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

144C and 92CA(4) are to be followed. When the determination is not in time, it cannot be relied upon by the assessing officer while concluding the assessment proceedings. 39. Upon consideration of the judgments and the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that the word "may" used therein has to be construed as "shall

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

144C and 92CA(4) are to be followed. When the determination is not in time, it cannot be relied upon by the assessing officer while concluding the assessment proceedings. 39. Upon consideration of the judgments and the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that the word "may" used therein has to be construed as "shall

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. The remittances for Engineering Services paid to ASAS were totaling to an amount of Rs.23,70,78,604/-, whereas an amount of Rs. 57,422,160 was debited to the profit and loss account for the said year. It was also gathered that the said issue is the subject matter of order under section 201 and 201(1A) dated

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act, for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: The learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO"), learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("learned TPO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP") grossly erred in adjusting the transfer price by INR 15,17,38,598/- of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated Enterprises

M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

144C(1) of the I. T. 1961 on 28.03.2016 in which addition of Rs. 3,29,82,771/- was made in accordance with the provisions of section 92C(4) and section 92CA(4) of the Income-tax Act, on this issue. The assessee aggrieved by the Draft Assessment order dated 28.03.2016, filed objection before Draft Resolution Panel