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

3 years for passing the assessment order from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. In this case, admittedly, the income is assessable for assessment year 2009-2010. Thus, three years period expired on 31.03.2013. However the assessment order was admittedly passed on 28.3.2014. Therefore, it is beyond the period prescribed

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

144C gives a complete go bye to section 153; and (ii) The Act does not contemplate any limitation for passing of draft assessment order, which can be passed within a reasonable time. 14. Though arguments were advanced that the aforesaid decision does not lay down the correct law, we are of the view that a co-ordinate Bench decision

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,190/- only. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the CPC disallowed the claim of gratuity expenses for Rs. 5,13,01,761/- as per the provision of section 43B of the Act, thereby the CPC assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

144C of the Income-tax Act or issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, and the time limit for completion of such action expires on the 30th day of April, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications, such

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

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

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

144C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR 38,59,910 is bad in law. General Ground Pressed Page

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

144C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR 38,59,910 is bad in law. General Ground Pressed Page

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

144C(3) of the Income General Ground Pressed tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR 38,59,910 is bad in law. Page

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

144C and got detached from section 153. Along with this, passing of draft order also became mandatory, for which we have held above that the same is required to be passed within a reasonable time and it has got no relation with the time limit given in section 153. When the position is such that the draft order

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

144C and got detached from section 153. Along with this, passing of draft order also became mandatory, for which we have held above that the same is required to be passed within a reasonable time and it has got no relation with the time limit given in section 153. When the position is such that the draft order

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.) A. No.328/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Ge Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Since Merged With Wipro Ge Healthcare Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd.) Plot Nos.3, 3A & 4, Kadugodi Indl. Area, Bangalore-560 067 Pan Aaacg 7655G Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P.) A. No.224/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G.R. Reddy, Cit-I (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 9.9.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals By Revenue & The Assessee, Preferred Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dt.30.12.2014 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') In Pursuance To The Directions Dt.28.11.2014 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

Section 143(3) rws 144C(13) of the Act vide order dt.30.12.2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.129,48,856 which included T.P. Adjustment of Rs.68,67,29,714. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee are aggrieved by the impugned order of assessment dt.30.12.2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11 and have revised the following grounds

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act, is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act, and is thus void-ab-initio, illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. MANUFACTURING SEGMENT 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dt.15.12.2017. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) on the disputed issue considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the TPO has made adjustments towards commission for utilization of non-fund based limits of the assessee by Associated Enterprises

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dt.15.12.2017. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) on the disputed issue considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the TPO has made adjustments towards commission for utilization of non-fund based limits of the assessee by Associated Enterprises

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

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dt.15.12.2017. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) on the disputed issue considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the TPO has made adjustments towards commission for utilization of non-fund based limits of the assessee by Associated Enterprises

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dt.15.12.2017. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) on the disputed issue considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the TPO has made adjustments towards commission for utilization of non-fund based limits of the assessee by Associated Enterprises

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

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dt.15.12.2017. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) on the disputed issue considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the TPO has made adjustments towards commission for utilization of non-fund based limits of the assessee by Associated Enterprises