TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5),— (a) make such further

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)

Price for Marketing Support Services 86,09,113 4. Valuation of Intellectual Property (‘IP’) transferred to AE 342,78,18,865 Total adjustment u/s 92CA 344,48,62,575 IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 15 of 21 5. Disallowance of advertising, marketing & promotion 3,48,14,372 expenses us 37 6. Disallowance

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

transfer pricing additions and no new facts needs to be investigated for adjudicating the same.\nPage 8 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\nConsidering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India

HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

transfer pricing adjustment and thereafter the draft assessment order was issued on 26.12.2017. The company filed a review application before ld. DRP on 25.1.2018 against the draft assessment order. The ld. DRP issued its direction vide an order dated 14.9.2018. The TPO accordingly issued an order giving effect to ld. DRP’s direction. Finally, the assessment proceedings

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings are not pressed. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 5 stands dismissed. 7. In respect of Ground nos. 6 to 11 pertaining to disallowance of payment made towards TV airing expenses, TV production expenses by holding that these expenses are in violation of law and public policy. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that this issue stands covered

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for.\n31. Accordingly

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

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur-Canesugar Works

GOOGLE LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOOGLE INC.),CALIFORNIA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 167/Bang/2021 - Ay : 2010-11) It(It)A No. 688/Bang/2022 - Ay : 2012-13)

reassessment proceedings the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price (ALP) of the payments

M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Transfer Pricing The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) [PCIT]j erred in invoking the powers under Sec. 263 to extend the statutory time limit given to the AO/TPO in completing assessment, which is illegal exercise of power; 2. The PCIT erred in invoking the power under Section

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

Transfer Pricing adjustments. 4. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2021. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs.91,34,83,890/- (declared in the original return of income). Thereafter, assessee asked for the reasons recorded for the issue

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal