BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

345 results for “TDS”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore345Mumbai342Delhi307Chennai117Kolkata52Hyderabad34Ahmedabad22Pune20Chandigarh14Jaipur6Karnataka4Rajkot4Visakhapatnam3Indore3Cuttack2Kerala1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing80Section 143(3)64Addition to Income63Section 92C58Disallowance51Comparables/TP48Section 4047Section 10A45Deduction44Section 14A

M/S INGERSOLL-RAND CLIMATE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

TP)A Nos.729/Bang/2017 Page 14 of 16 19. Considering the facts of the present case and respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal we are of the view that the TPO is not justified in applying CUP is the most appropriate method for computing the ALP treating the cost contribution charges as the most appropriate method

M/S SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Showing 1–20 of 345 · Page 1 of 18

...
37
TP Method27
Section 234B22
ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
31 Aug 2021
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

method. Determination of ALP on the basis of facts and circumstances and as per the requirements of the relevant statutory provision is mandatory and cannot be accepted owing to default. We therefore set aside the order of the AO/TPO on the issue and the directions of the DRP on the issue and remand the issue to the IT(TP

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

method to determined arm's length rate of royalties paid to AE. 10.4 Ld.AR submitted that, both authorities below proceeded on the footing that, no evidence has been provided by assessee to prove any tangible benefit derived from being the royalty for the so- called superior technology. 10.5 Referring to pages of small paper book filed by Ld.AR submitted

ITO WARD - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Method (`TNMM') as the MAM for the said transaction. The DRP erred in confirming the same. b) That the AO / TPO erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Appellant's application of Gross Profit Margin as the Profit Level Indicator (`PU') for the above international transaction. The DRP erred in confirming the same. c) That, without prejudice

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Method (`TNMM') as the MAM for the said transaction. The DRP erred in confirming the same. b) That the AO / TPO erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Appellant's application of Gross Profit Margin as the Profit Level Indicator (`PU') for the above international transaction. The DRP erred in confirming the same. c) That, without prejudice

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

ITA 281/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K Ganeshan, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

method adopted by the Appellant in its the TP documentation. 9. The Honourable DRP and the learned AO / TPO have erred in law in adopting the below filter for conducting TP analysis: a. Rejection of comparable companies having different financial year ending (other than March 31, 2016) b. Rejection of companies having persistent losses 10. The Honourable

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

ITA 1319/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 92C

method to determined arm’s length rate of royalties paid to AE. 10.4 Ld.AR submitted that, both authorities below proceeded on the footing that, no evidence has been provided by assessee to prove any tangible benefit derived from being the royalty for the so- called superior technology. 10.5 Referring to pages of small paper book filed by Ld.AR submitted

M/S SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2471/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

method; b. Computing arm's length price of invoicing and collection services at 25% without selecting any comparables. Even otherwise such rate is excessive; and c. Applying arm's length price of 25% on revenue without appreciating that under PSM, profits not revenue have to be split in relative contribution. 9. Assuming without admitting that the adjustment

M/S. TRIANZ HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 2639/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.2639/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner #165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Magnum, Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bennerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assesee Has Raised 36 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal. However, Learned Ar Had Argued Only Following Six Issues:-

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 14A

Method (MAM) (grounds 11 to 25) – Alternative grounds. 2 IT(TP)A No.2639/Bang/2019. M/s Trianz Holdings Private Limited. (iii) Interest on outstanding receivables (grounds 26 to 31) Corporate Tax Issues (iv) Disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act [ground 32(b)] (v) Non-deduction of TDS

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1789/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

method for benchmarking international transactions, it is not permissible for the TPO to cherry-pick certain expenses and benchmark them separately under CUP. Such action results in impermissible double adjustment. Likewise, in Bostik India Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A No. 2472/Bang/2024), the Tribunal has held that application of a hypothetical CUP without comparable data is unsustainable and that TNMM should

M/S. WIELAND METALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2394/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Method since the Company functioned only up to 33.62% of its capacity. Since under- utilisation of capacity during that year was significantly due to market forces, ignoring the same in arriving at the OPM which relates to actual operations only is grossly incorrect. 41. The ld. DR submitted that DRP held that as pointed out by the TPO sufficient data

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

method ('MAM') to benchmark the international transaction of payment of royalty. Without prejudice, while applying PSM, the Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in: a) comparing two totally different ratios/ profit level indicators for computation of TP adjustment wherein the ratio of royalty income by sales of comparable companies is compared with the ratio of operating profit earned

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Sri.Yogesh Thar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

method is as under: The Fair Market Value as per Rule 11 UA would be: [(A-L) /(PE)] x (PV) Where, -- A= book value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid asdeduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

methods of manufacture/ technology provided under the aforementioned agreements. IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page 42 of 55 v. The object of the aforementioned agreement was to obtain the benefit of technical knowledge available with the licensors, for running the business of the Appellant. vi. Further, the license fee is calculated as a percentage of sales, hence, it is recurring

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

methods prescribed under the Indian TP provisions. In the context of cost sharing arrangement, the Hon’ble High Court opined that concept of base erosion is not a logical inference from the fact that the AEs have only asked for reimbursement of cost. This being a transaction between related parties, whether that cost itself is inflated or not only

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

methods prescribed under the Indian TP provisions. In the context of cost sharing arrangement, the Hon’ble High Court opined that concept of base erosion is not a logical inference from the fact that the AEs have only asked for reimbursement of cost. This being a transaction between related parties, whether that cost itself is inflated or not only

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

method in the TP study report. The TPO also erred on facts and in Page 4 of 15 IT(TP)A No. 3/Bang/2020 ABB Global Industries and Services Pvt. Ltd. law treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction as per provisions of section 92B of the Act. 2.6 Treatment of provision no longer required as non- operating income

M/S IKA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2476/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Darpan Kirpalani, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sree Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92

method would have amounted to enhancement of the income of the appellant, so opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant vide order sheet entry dated IT(TP)A No.2476/Bang/2017 Page 31 of 35 11.08.2017, as to why the proportionate reduction done by the TPO should not be disregarded. The appellant sought time to file written submissions

QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE :LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI

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

ITA 279/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 92C

TDS and advance tax. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. For the above and any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing, it is prayed that necessary relief may be provided

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

method’ as MAM. IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 70 11.3 The TPO relied on its order for earlier AY 2013-14 and treated the ALP of the sales promotion expenses as ‘Nil’ adopting CUP as the MAM. The TPO made downward adjustment of Rs.9,25,00,000/- towards sales promotion expenses