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

method as may be prescribed, if the A.0 having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 37 of 84 (3) The provisions

M/S NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. He submitted that the assessee had furnished all the relevant details to the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and hence, there is no failure as contemplated in the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. He submitted that the assessee had furnished all the relevant details to the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and hence, there is no failure as contemplated in the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. He submitted that the assessee had furnished all the relevant details to the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and hence, there is no failure as contemplated in the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. He submitted that the assessee had furnished all the relevant details to the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and hence, there is no failure as contemplated in the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case

EPSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ULSOOR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 by issue of notice u/s. 148 on 15.09.2017. The matter was referred to TPO to determine the ALP of international transaction. The TPO wide order dated 28.10.2019 treated the Advertising, Marketing and Promotional (AMP) expenditure incurred by the assessee as a separate international transaction and calculated average AMP expenses on sales of comparables

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

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

method, other than interest, for such funding, it has to be net effective gains (direct and indirect), attributable to the risks assumed by the sponsorer of the SPV, of the SPV in question. The said decision rendered was on its peculiar facts and the Tribunal decided the issue on first principles without relying on any of the decided cases

M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub- section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board 5 for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means,— (i) any person in whose case

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2016-17, based on the statements recorded of the employees. It is noted that the revenue proceeded on a fact that assessee transacted with SanDisk India even prior to the date of acquisition, which is unfounded and without any documentary support. Page 15 of 19 IT(TP

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

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)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

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

TP adjustment towards excess payment of premium on redemption of shares. (ii) The ld. AR also submitted that the valuation of preference shares is done in accordance with Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) of the I.T. Rules and accordingly shares of the assessee have been valued by an independent Chartered Accountant under the NAV method. (iii) Rule 11UA

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

TP adjustment towards excess payment of premium on redemption of shares. (ii) The ld. AR also submitted that the valuation of preference shares is done in accordance with Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b) of the I.T. Rules and accordingly shares of the assessee have been valued by an independent Chartered Accountant under the NAV method. (iii) Rule 11UA

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

Method" to arrive at his undisclosed income. Notice under section 153A dated 24.7.2009 was issued to the assessee, requiring the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days from the date of service of notice, by the ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page

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

Method" to arrive at his undisclosed income. Notice under section 153A dated 24.7.2009 was issued to the assessee, requiring the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days from the date of service of notice, by the ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page

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

Method" to arrive at his undisclosed income. Notice under section 153A dated 24.7.2009 was issued to the assessee, requiring the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days from the date of service of notice, by the ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore. IT(TP)A Nos. 1700 to 1702/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.38 to 40/Bang/2019 Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Method ("TNMM") analysis conducted by the Appellant and also proposing a different set of comparable companies for re-computing the arm's length price ("ALP") for the manufacturing activity. [corresponding to Ground 3(a)] 4. That the learned Panel erred in law and on facts by including Surana Ventures Limited as a comparable whereas this company has significant related party

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Method ("TNMM") analysis conducted by the Appellant and also proposing a different set of comparable companies for re-computing the arm's length price ("ALP") for the manufacturing activity. [corresponding to Ground 3(a)] 4. That the learned Panel erred in law and on facts by including Surana Ventures Limited as a comparable whereas this company has significant related party

MCAFEE SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both Assessee’s appeal and Revenue’s appeal are ‘partly allowed’

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices, or, at the option of the Assessee, a price which may vary from the IT(TP)A Nos. 04/Bang/2012 & 1388/Bang/2011 Page 19 of 21 arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent of such arithmetical mean”. 63. The first limb