ABB INDUSTRIES FZE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.2101/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Abb Industries Fze, C/O Abb India Ltd., 21St Floor, World Trade Centre, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram(West), Bengaluru-560 055. … Appellant Pan:Aajca 9766 H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 28/09/2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India in terms of Article 5 of the Tax Treaty and therefore, it is not liable to tax in India. 4. The Assessing Officer, considered the submissions of the assessee-company in respect of India and UAE, DTAA and FTS and dealt on the provisions of section 90 of the Act and the judicial decisions

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

permanent address, PAN and other relevant information. Creditworthiness: As per audited financials, D B Corporation has profit after tax of Rs.343,74,27,405/-. Bank statements of D B Corporation Limited is placed at Page 130 of the Paper Book. Confirmation: The investment made in the capital of the Appellant is disclosed in the Audited Financials of D B Corporation

RANGSONS SCHUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

68,00,213/-. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act and subsequently various statutory notices Page 3 of 7 were issued to the assessee but there was no response. Therefore, AO passed Order under section 144 of the Act. Further, on merits of the case, he submitted that the provision of section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CD of the act, and completion of Transfer pricing proceedings accepting the modified tax returns. Accordingly, the transfer pricing issues for all the years under consideration and the relevant grounds as tabulated hereinabove in assessee’s appeals are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, all the grounds related to transfer pricing issues in assessee’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

68 are satisfied. 14. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: “Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction

ACIT vs. M/S ALVARES & THOMAS,

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: “Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction

M/S ORKLA ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

permanent Establishment (PE) in India by referring to article 5 of the DTAA and has taken a stand that the income of Rs.71,21,169/- earned by the company during the FY 2014-15 by way of legal and professional charges from their 100% subsidiary company M/s. MTR Foods Pvt Ltds in India is a Business Income and hence taxable

M/S MARIGOLD LOGISTICS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

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

permanent account numbers to highlight the identity of the share applicants as well as produced affidavits of directors and furthermore the bank details of share applicants to have been provided it was held that, assessee had established the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of transaction and the creditworthiness and therefore addition made under section 68

M/S INDIAON TIME EXPRESS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Indiaon Time Express Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A1, Samhita Ritz, Commissioner Of Nagavarapalya, Income Tax, Cv Raman Nagar, Circle – 3 [1][1], Bangalore – 560 093. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacci6196C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Revenue By Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/10/2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Taw, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Authorities Below Have Not Justified In Making An Addition Of Rs.41,04,847/- On An Estimate Basis At 5% Of The Total Expenditure Claimed Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

established by the assessee, however, the assessee needs to place on record details of source from where a creditor deposits monies into its books of account. The foot not relevant to section 68 refers to Circular No.5 dated 20/02/1969. This circular is in respect of monies brought into India by Non residents migrants. We reproduce the circular as under: SECTION

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

68 taxmann.com 8 has held that the judgment in case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte.Ltd. vs. ITO(supra) does not reflect the correct law on interpretation of DTAA. 10. The Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following observation by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DDIT vs.New Skies Satellite BV(supra): “31. In a judgment by the Madras High Court

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

established principle as has been held in the decisions relied upon by the respondent namely Indwell Constructions case ('supra), Banwari Lal Banshidhars case (supra), Aggarwal Engg. Co.'s case (supra) and Amman Steel & Allied Industries case (supra). It is prayed that your honours hold that no additions of the creditors or disallowance was warranted by relying upon the books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

68,00,000 2. Binary Spectrum Softech Pvt. Ltd. 3,42,00,000 3. Kinfotech Pvt. Ltd. 5,10,00,000 4. Line Beyond Inc. 22,34,98,800 5. Mindriver Information Tec Pvt Ltd. 9,50,42,641 6. Optec Consulting Inc 33,87,80,047 7. Vision Info