DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

Gains from Business' after claim of deduction under section 1 OA for the Bangalore and Pune units., the learned AO be directed to allow carry forward of the loss under the head 'Income from other Sources' amounting to Rs. 2, 16,017 for set off against income in subsequent years. 3. Interest under section 234B The learned AO has erred

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

gain by the AO relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M J Siwani 366 ITR 356. 4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. We will first consider the legal ground raised challenging the reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The learned AR argued that

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A. (ii) any transaction referred to in 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

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X' and therefore addition under Chapter X is bad in law. b) passing the order without demonstrating that the Appellant had motive of tax evasion. Grounds relating to treatment as Associated enterprise 4. The lower authorities have erred in: a) considering Jockey Inc.as

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

gains of business or profession’.” When we read the definition of the word “paid” u/s 43(2) in juxtaposition to section 37(1), the position which emerges is that it is not only paying of expenditure but also incurring of the expenditure which entails deduction u/s 37(1) subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. …………………………………………………………………………… by undertaking to issue shares

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

capital at risk (or) take any other strategic decisions. Accordingly, no single promoter group has "control/influence" over decisions of the board. Based on the above facts, our tax auditors have also not considered Force India as an associated enterprise of UBL. Consequently, we request your good self not to consider Force India as an Associated Enterprise of United breweries Limited

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail." As per Rule 10B(3), an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if :— "E (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if— (i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared

M/S. E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S. E4E Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Vakil Square, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. ……. Appellant Pan – Aaaci 6324A. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(2), Bengalore. …………..Respondent

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses

M/S ZYME SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K Garodiashri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.85/Bang/2016 (Asst. Year – 2011-12) M/S Zyme Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No.459, Laksha Towers, Ashoka Pillar Road, 2Nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan No.Aaacz2465R. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ward-7(1)(2), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 -04-2017

Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X and therefore addition under Chapter X is bad in law. IT(TP)A No.85/B/16 5. passing the order without demonstrating that the Appellant had motive of tax evasion. 6. Re-computing the TP adjustment at Rs. 4,03,93,455/- in the final

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining IT(TP)A No.1548/Bang/2010 Page 4 of 40 the ALP. Operating profits to cost was adopted as the Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”). The PLI of the assessee was arrived at as follows: Operating Revenue

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KODIAK NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. Operating profits to cost was adopted as the Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”). The PLI of the assessee was arrived at as follows: Revenue Rs.16,23,64,188 PBIT

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer

M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. In para 4.1.1. of its TP Study (Transfer Pricing Study) the Assessee explained that its TP study was confined only to the transaction of Development and delivery of domain specific software for Obapay Inc., USA. In para-4.1 at page-6 of the TP study the Assessee explained

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. In para 4.1.1. of its TP Study (Transfer Pricing Study) the Assessee explained that its TP study was confined only to the transaction of Development and delivery of domain specific software for Obapay Inc., USA. In para-4.1 at page-6 of the TP study the Assessee explained

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNQUEST INFORMATION SYSTEMS P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. Operating profits to cost was adopted as the Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”). The PLI of the assessee was arrived at as follows: Operating Revenue Rs.20,88,57,270 Operating Expenses Rs.18