CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house], has to be complied as they cannot be overlooked. In future the Government may consider amending the Act and extending the timelines as laid down in Section 54F from the date of approval of Sanction Plan by the Govt. Agencies. Based on the above discussion of facts and circumstances, the ld CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the decision taken

HONNAPPA MUNIVENKATAREDDY ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, #316, Overhead Tank Road, The Income Tax Officer, Chickballapur H.O, Chickballapur, Ward-2(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 562 101. Bengaluru. Pan: Aoxpm0334G Appellant Respondent

452/-.He submitted that Assessee has claimed deduction on the same. Assessee also stated that he has invested the capital gain and reinvestment in the residential house property. The Assessee furnished a copy of the purchase deed where the cost of land is stated to be Rs. 4,80,000/- and cost of constructing the new property

MADHU KHATRI, SINGAPORE,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2017-18

house property of Rs.5,11,944/-, income from capital gains of Rs.5,98,727/- and income from other sources of Rs.23,55,452/-. The return was processed on 30.03.2019 assessing the gross total income at Rs.6,17,80,857/- in which the salary income was assessed at Rs.5,83,14,734/-. Resultantly, there is variation of Rs.7,61,183/- under

KUNIGAL THIBBAIAH SRINIVASA,KUNIGAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , TUMAKURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Vs. Ito, Behind Shanthamma Temple, Ward – 2, Mahaveera Nagar, Tumkur Road, Tumakuru. Kunigal – 572 130. Pan : Ennps 4678 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 11.10.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 81 Days In Filing This Appeal. In An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, It Has Been Stated That The First Appellate Authority Passed An Ex-Parte Order Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Not Educated. He Is Residing In Mofussil Areas I.E., Kunigal & Is Not Aware Of The Intricacies Of E-Tax Proceedings. He Therefore Did Not Respond To Notice Issued Nor Instructed His Tax Practitioner. The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The First Appellate Authority & Came To Know About The Same Only When He Received Notice For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand On 21.11.2022. It Has Also Been Submitted That The Page 2 Of 6

house property and income from other sources being interest income. The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.42 lakhs. The AO called upon the assessee to file proof of having earned agricultural income. The assessee filed RTC/PANI of the land on which agricultural activities were carried on. According to the AO, since there was no evidence regarding earning of agricultural income

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

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

House,\nChennai - 600 017.\nPAN : ANOPS 2178 Q\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by\nShri. V. Sridhar, CA\nRevenue by\nShri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.\nDate of hearing\n29.10.2025\nDate of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025\nORDER\nPer Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :\nThis is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order passed by the\nlearned CIT(A) 2, Panaji, vide

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

452,024 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment to the arm’s length price with respect to software development service transaction entered into by the Appellant with its associated enterprises. b) The AO/TPO erred in law and on facts as he failed to establish that the Appellant shifted profits outside India. 2 Comparability analysis adopted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Properties India (P) Ltd. 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total 6,94,24,909 6,94,24,909 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer noticed that all the investments above were in group companies/concerns and had been made in the interest of the business activity of 3 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 the assessee. Further, majority of the investments above were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Properties India (P) Ltd. 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total 6,94,24,909 6,94,24,909 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer noticed that all the investments above were in group companies/concerns and had been made in the interest of the business activity of 3 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 the assessee. Further, majority of the investments above were

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

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks

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

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; IT(TP)A No.3071/Bang/2018 The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore Page 26 of 75 (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing

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

Housing Complex, of Income Tax, Arekere Layout, Circle 2(1), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 076. PAN: AENPR 7573N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arjun Raj, CA Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against

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

property transferred or services provided in either transaction; (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions; (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house. Accordingly, it is submitted that L&T is a product company and is thus not comparable to captive SWD service providers such as the Appellant. Significant brand value and intangible assets: The company is a market leader and thus enjoys significant benefits on account of high brand value, ownership of marketing intangibles, intellectual property rights and business rights

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)

house comparables; as held in paras 89 and 90 thereof :— "89. The TNM Method has seen a transition from a disfavoured comparable method, to possibly the most appropriate Transfer Pricing method due to ease and flexibility of applying the compatibility criteria and enhanced availability of comparables. Net profit record/data is assessable and within reach. It is readily and easily available

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle 12(1) Vs. M/S.Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore. (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) M.P.No.19/Bang/2014 Arising Out Of Ita No.1160/Bang/2012 - Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S.Menzies Aviation Acit, Circle 12(1) Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt. Vs. Bangalore. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi For Assessee : Mr. V. Srinivasan Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2015 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-Iii, Bangalore, Dated 11.06.2012 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2

452 paras 93 & 98 after referring to its various decisions and Halsbury’s Laws of England has held thus, the relevant paras reads as hereunder: “39. A public authority is a body which has public or statutory duties to perform and which performs those duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

house Production 10.33 7. Cosmic Global 11.27 8. Wisec Global Limited 0.14 9. Techprocess solutions Ltd. 4.40 Arithmetical Mean 12.50% 23. The TPO accepted three comparables highlighted above i.e., Informed Technologies India Ltd., Jindal Intellicom Limited and IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 53 Accentia Technologies and rejected the remaining 6 comparables selected by the Assessee

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

house Production 10.33 7. Cosmic Global 11.27 8. Wisec Global Limited 0.14 9. Techprocess solutions Ltd. 4.40 Arithmetical Mean 12.50% 23. The TPO accepted three comparables highlighted above i.e., Informed Technologies India Ltd., Jindal Intellicom Limited and IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 53 Accentia Technologies and rejected the remaining 6 comparables selected by the Assessee