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

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. 3.3 The AO accordingly assessed the LTCG at Rs. 26,91,120/-. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Capital Gain u/s.45 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 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

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

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

144C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Grounds on merits of the matter: a. Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(38),Rs.28,65,882/-: i. The authorities below were not justified in disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains

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

5 of 23 section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee". c. The learned AO has erred in passing order under Section 143(3) of the Act along with notice of demand under section

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

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. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, who confirmed the said addition. The AO in the final assessment order considered the correct indexation value

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

5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in not directing the AO to delete the levy of DDT on buy-back of shares as proposed in the draft assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. 6 That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

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

capital adjustment has been granted at actuals i.e., (-)1.40%, without making any restriction as contended by Revenue in the grounds of appeal, ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised on this issue are infructuous as they require no adjudication and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 10. Ground No.6 – Exclusion of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., (Acropetal) 10.1 In this ground (supra), Revenue

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

capital gains to Rs. 1,11,26,626/- (from Rs. 64,86,375/- claimed by the assessee). As such, the excess indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 46,40,251/- was disallowed by the AO and added back to the returned income of the assessee. 5. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP, which upheld the AO's decision

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

MERCEDES - BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) dt.20.1.2016, both Revenue and the assessee have preferred cross appeals. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee had filed paper book, case law compendium and chart of comparables seeking inclusion / exclusion of 10 IT(TP)A Nos.269 & 381/Bang/2016 certain companies into / from the list of comparables. We have heard both parties, perused

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 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

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

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.1670/Bang/2012 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block 1, No.6 & 24, Epip Zone Phase 1, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066 …. Appellant. Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, Cit-Iii (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 5.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2008-09 By The Dcit, Circle 11(4), Bangalore Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.29.10.2012, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Rws 144C(8) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.17.9.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

144C of the Act dt.29.10.2012 assessing the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.58,69,63,275 by making the following additions/disallowances :- (i) T.P. Adjustment : Rs.26,13,69,735. (ii) Project Specific Cost : Rs.11,25,95,270. 3.1 Aggrieved by this final order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.29.10.2012, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before