EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 12. As far as merit of appeals are concerned, we are of the view that the scope of proceedings pursuant to an order u/s.263 of the Act, have not been properly appreciated. The relevant provisions of Sec.263 of the Act read thus:- “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3) (1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHNARAYANA, DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

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

condoning the delay in filing C.O. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

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

condoning the delay in filing C.O. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

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

condoning the delay in filing C.O. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 11 6. In the appeal by the Revenue, the Revenue is aggrieved by the action by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-7, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

condonation of delay on the basis of advice of a Counsel when action based on the advice is taken after a considerable lapse of time. The appeal in ITA No.7/Bang/2022 is therefore dismissed. 7. IT(TP) No.2042/Bang/2019: As we have already seen this appeal out of the order passed under section 263 of the Act, which we have discussed while

M/S. VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

condonation of delay on the basis of advice of a Counsel when action based on the advice is taken after a considerable lapse of time. The appeal in ITA No.7/Bang/2022 is therefore dismissed. 7. IT(TP) No.2042/Bang/2019: As we have already seen this appeal out of the order passed under section 263 of the Act, which we have discussed while

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)

Method of computation of capital gains on transfer of IP to AE Practo Pte Ltd., Singapore (Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal No. 8) 12.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP/Learned AO erred in bringing to tax the gains on transfer of IP without appreciating the fact that the computation mechanism

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S FMC INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the assessee's C

Method. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Haworth (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2011-TII-64-ITAT-Del-TP). Once it is possible to find out even one ideal comparable, there is no need to apply the filter to include the comparables which have related party transactions. However, in the circumstances where

M/S METRIC STREAM INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2) , BANGALORE

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

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

condoned, we are of the view that the question of delay is only a technical as the assessee has filed the appeal within the time on 1.3.2017 though the same was defective. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal filed is within time and in any event there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal

M/S METRICSTREAM INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

condoned, we are of the view that the question of delay is only a technical as the assessee has filed the appeal within the time on 1.3.2017 though the same was defective. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal filed is within time and in any event there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal

MRS. SUVINA KRUPAL,SOMWARPET vs. ITO, MADIKERI

In the result appeal stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

condonation of delay in filing present appeal stands allowed. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5. Assessee is a company and filed its return of income for year under consideration on 31/10/2005 declaring nil income. The return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act and Page 6 of 28 ITA No.337 & 204/Bang/2014 the case was subsequently

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(LTU), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS(INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

condoned accepting the reasons given for the delay. 25. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities after examining