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

ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.38/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

3) read with section 144C of the Act on 11/04/2014 by making following additions in th ct on 11/04/2014 by making following additions in the hands ct on 11/04/2014 by making following additions in th of assessee: 9. Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment as as as per per per order order order under under under section section section 92CA: 92CA: 92CA: Rs.5

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

house property of Rs.59,535/- and interest from deposits in banks of Rs.60,557/- along with NIL capital gains after claim of cost of acquisition & deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee in his computation of income had also claimed deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act and thus declared total income of Rs.1,10,090/-.The AO while completing

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

3 of 14 a) Received amount of Rs.70,00,000/- for sale of immovable property. b) Paid purchase consideration Rs.21,26,423/- for purchase of immovable property to Bhartiya Urban Private Limited. After obtaining the prior approval of the CIT (Intl. Taxation), Bengaluru on 29/03/2023, the order u/s. 148A(d)of the Act along with the notice

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(13) of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the draft assessment order as per the directions of the DRP. 2.5 The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.429,75,39,850/- against the income of Rs.349,75,85,670/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. 2.6 The assessee being aggrieved

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

144C of the Act and therefore the AO passed the final assessment order dated 21.2.2011 incorporating the additions suggested by the TPO in his order. Against the said order of assessment, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO. Hence this appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

144C(13) r.w.s 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the returned income of the Assessee at Rs. Nil/- is assessed at a loss of Rs. 161,63,03,274/-. The Assessee is aggrieved with that and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos. 261 & 777/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 18 2. In the Assessment Order, there

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

144C(1) of the Act. In the draft assessment order so passed the Ld.AO:- • disallowed depreciation on computer software at Rs.7,46,162/- for non-deduction of TDS; • disallowed payments on which TDS was not deducted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.7,46,162/-; • disallowed professional charges for non-deduction of TDS under section

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard ld. Department Representative Dr. Divya.K.J., CIT and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a senior citizen

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard ld. Department Representative Dr. Divya.K.J., CIT and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a senior citizen

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 3. The Appellant filed its objections before the DRP which issued its directions on 30.12.2013. In line with the DRP directions, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act on 30.01.2014 computing the loss at INR 48,29,16,189/-. Aggrieved, both

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

144C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (" the Act") for the captioned Assessment Year ("AY"). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may be kindly considered independent of each other. 1. Ground 1: Income earned by the Appellant erroneously characterized to be in the nature of Fees for Included Services/ Fees for Technical Services under

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

144C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (" the Act") for the captioned Assessment Year ("AY"). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may be kindly considered independent of each other. 1. Ground 1: Income earned by the Appellant erroneously characterized to be in the nature of Fees for Included Services/ Fees for Technical Services under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , BANGALORE

In the result appeal is filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by assessee becomes infructuous

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10

144C and 153A of the Act, and 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, for assessment years 2009-10 and 2008-9 respectively. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Assessee is an infrastructure company engaged in the business of handling engineering procurement construction solutions in infrastructure sector, corporate support services to various infrastructure special purpose

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Reopening of Assessment: 2.1 The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that no "fresh tangible material

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

properties owned by the Appellant by failing to appreciate that such registrations are obtained in compliance with the statutory preconditions for sale of the products. 11.5 The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate that the alleged associated enterprises are acting as distributors and are paying the purchase consideration to the appellant in respect thereof leaving nothing else to be paid

FCG SOFTWARE SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

144C(13), dated 12.09.2011 incorporating the TP adjustment of Rs.7,98,19,873/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 8. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the learned TPO has included 14 comparables which are functionally dissimilar with that of the assessee company. In this connection, he contended that the following companies