HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

144C(13) of the Act dated 15.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book as well as case law compilation in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee CA Siddesh N Gaddi vehemently submitted that only dispute in the present case is with

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

144C(13) of the Act dated 12.12.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee had sold his house property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 and also made a booking for construction

M/S INATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

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

gain of the Company should be treated as an operating income for the purpose of the transfer pricing analysis. III. Carrying out erroneous working capital adjustment while undertaking the transfer pricing analysis. IV. Erroneously considering the segmental results of AE and Non AE operations while proposing the transfer pricing adjustment. IT(TP)A No. 214/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 23 Erroneously

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

capital gain of Rs.28,65,882/-in the financial year 2014-15 in the scrip of M/s GCM Securities Limited, M/s Unno Industries, M/s Pearl Electric Limited, M/s Mahaveer Advanced Rem and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the act. During the course of search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, it was found that

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

144C gives a complete go bye to section 153; and (ii) The Act does not contemplate any limitation for passing of draft assessment order, which can be passed within a reasonable time. 14. Though arguments were advanced that the aforesaid decision does not lay down the correct law, we are of the view that a co-ordinate Bench decision

RAVIKUMAR TIRUPATI PARTHASARATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

section 144C would become applicable. In view of this, the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7. We will now consider the issue on merits. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a consideration of Rs.1,55,00,000. In the statement of income the assessee computed the capital gain as under

RAHUL AGARWAL ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(15)(b). 3. The DRP/ AO, having accepted the fact that the Appellant 52,19,475 was resident in India during the relevant previous year, ought to have held that the AO had no jurisdiction to assess the Appellant. 4. The impugned order deserves to be quashed as the initiation 52,19,475 of proceedings under section 148 read

M/S.ASM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.66/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Asm Technologies Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.80/2, Lusanne Court, Circle – 1(1)(2), Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aabca 4362 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing software development services, manpower supply and training. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed the return declaring a total income of Rs.10,21,07,240/-. The assessee entered into transactions with

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain income of Rs. 37,28,537/- on sale of sale of equity share / unit of equity oriented Mutual Fund under section 111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

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

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. assessment year is 2014-15. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Facts pertaining to both the assessees are identical except for variation in figures. Therefore we are setting

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

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

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. assessment year is 2014-15. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Facts pertaining to both the assessees are identical except for variation in figures. Therefore we are setting

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

gain as operating in nature for the purpose of computing OP/TC of the Appellant and the OP/TC of the comparable companies remaining in the final set; 6.9. Erred in not providing appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed by the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. IT(TP)A No.154/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 28 6.10 Erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

144C of the IT Act, on 23.09.2021 at a total assessed income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

144C of the IT Act, on 23.09.2021 at a total assessed income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

144C(8) of the Act, by directing the AO / TPO to consider forex fluctuation loss as operating in nature, without considering the fact the said issue was not "any matter arising out of assessment proceedings relating to draft order" and hence the enhancement done by the DRP is beyond its jurisdiction and bad in-law. Additional Grounds filed vide letter

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

144C(8) of the Act, by directing the AO / TPO to consider forex fluctuation loss as operating in nature, without considering the fact the said issue was not "any matter arising out of assessment proceedings relating to draft order" and hence the enhancement done by the DRP is beyond its jurisdiction and bad in-law. Additional Grounds filed vide letter

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.03.2021. IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 110 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring

M/S SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

144C(13) of the Act by the Ld. AO was served on the Appellant on November 29, 2018 whereas the due date for completion of the assessment was October 31, 2018. 3. Erroneous treatment of foreign exchange loss pertaining to Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds as operating in nature 3.1. Given the facts and circumstances of the case

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant assessment year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of four days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons