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

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.\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\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 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.

capital gain from bonus BEL shares to business income, denying exemption under Section 10(38). Both assessments were allegedly done without following mandatory procedures.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny without proper approval and by failing to issue a draft assessment order as required by Section 144C

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2016-2017. 2. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the grounds of appeal filed along with Form No.36 on 23.6.2021 can be taken up for consideration. In ground No.1 to 16 of the grounds of appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order

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.23,18,153/- made on the scrip sale of Pearl Electric Limited on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below were not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act with respect to the purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances

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

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

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

3 The Assessee has purchased only a vacant site on 24/08/2017. 4 The Assessee has not made any investment in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section 54(2) of the Act. 5 The construction has not been completed within three years period i.e. within 31/07/2018

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 2 of 14 3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the specific information flagged as per risk management strategy

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. 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. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

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

144C of the Act. The assessee has also, in terms of sec.144C of the Act, filed its objections before the Ld DRP. After the receipt of the directions from Ld. DRP, the assessing officer has passed the final assessment order. Except for attaching a notice of demand along with the draft assessment order, everything has been done in accordance with

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

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

144C of the Act. 6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in holding that interest under section 115-P of the Act is leviable on the Appellant. 7 That the Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above

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

Capital Adjustment (As per Annex. C) Adjusted margin 23.06% 61,22,85,229 Operating Cost (in Rs.) 75,34,76,203 Arm's Length Price(ALP) (in Its.) 123.06% of Operating Cost) Price Received (in Rs.) 71,14,17,247 4,20,60,956 Variation between the ALP and price received (in Rs.) 3,55,70,862 5% of price

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 of the Act, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C by issuing a draft assessment order in which an addition of Rs.52,89,346 was made towards capital gains

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

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

Capital Adjustment (as per Annexure C) 2.19% Adjusted mean margin of the comparables 21.46% Operating Cost Rs.34,76,70,376 Arm’s Length Margin 121.46% of Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price (ALP) Rs.42,22,80,439 Price Received Rs.39,87,70,164 Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.2,35,10,275 3.5 Based on the above computation

RANGARAJ ROHINI,INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE 2(1) BANGALORE, KORMANGALA BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, determining the total assessed income at Rs. 1,11,26,626/- only. . IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 7 6. Being aggrieved by the direction/ order of the ld. DRP/ the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld. AR for the assessee respectfully submits that

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