YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,85,910/-. 3. The Learned AO has erred, in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,34,16,328/-. Grounds relating to transfer pricing matters: 4. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and in facts, by providing a consolidated direction for 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th grounds of objections filed

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

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

SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

68 of the Act and applied tax rate under Section 115BBE of the Act. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings by stating as under: - “2, The assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,70,48,675/- during the demonitization period in his bank accounts in five different Banks. The Assessing Officer should have obtained the cash denomination for all bank accounts

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

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

144C(3) of the Income\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CR5(1) (2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.145/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Parametric Technology (India) Circle 5(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Phoenix Towers, 16, Museum Road, Bangalore-560 025 Pan Aabcp 2629J Appellant Respondent. I.T. (T.P) A. No.226/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Assessee) Assessee By : S/Shri Ajith Tolani & Darpan Kirpalani, C.As. Revenue By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, By The Assessee & Revenue, Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Issued Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.28.11.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

5) of the Act vide order dt.28.11.2014, allowing the assessee partial relief. Consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer passed the final order of assessment under Section 143(3) rws 144C of the Act vide order dt.30.12.2014, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.2,68

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

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

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

68,912/- under section 10A of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was taken up for scrutiny for this year. A reference under section 92CA of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arms length price

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

144C of the Act vide order dt.7.9.2012 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.3,52,93,346 in view of the following additions/disallowances :- (i) disallowance of deduction u/s.10A : Rs.17,63,449. (ii) Miscellaneous Income : Rs.9,502. (iii) T.P. Adjustment : Rs.2,35,10,275. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.7.9.2012

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the same has not been considered at the time of assessment, the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as per Explanation 2 to Section 263 of IT Act. 6. The assessee submitted that Recourse to the provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

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)

68,58,962 after incorporating the TP adjustments as above and making certain disallowances under section 14A and section 37 of the Act. It may be noted that the draft assessment order was passed post the date of condonation of delay in e-verification of the return. 3.9 The Assessee filed its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel

SMT. ARUNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) without participation of assessee. The ld. AO while pursuing the records noticed that assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1)(i) of the Act was issued

M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.)A. No.97/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Co. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Sy.No.32, No.469, Jakkasandra Village, Circle 2(1)(1), Sondekappa Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru-1. Bengaluru Ruraldistrict-562 123 Pan Aaccb 7928D Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P.)A. No.493/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee : Shri K.K. Chythanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ganapati R Bhat,Cit-Iii (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By Revenue, Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.31.12.2014, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dt.21.11.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing & Trading Of Wood Working Machinery, Spare Parts & Tools & Also Provides Software Testing, Technical Design & Marketing Services To Its Parent Company, Biesse Spa, Italy. The Assessee

144C(13) of the Act dt.31.12.2014 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.1,84,17,896 and which included T.P. Adjustment of Rs.10,67,28,496. 3. Aggrieved by this order of assessment dt.3.12.2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11, both the assessee and Revenue have preferred appeals raising the following grounds :- 3 IT(T.P)A Nos.97 & 493/Bang/2015

MERCEDES - BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

5 Repairs & Maintenance (Paid) 22,04,444 7 IT(TP)A Nos.269 & 381/Bang/2016 4.3 The financial results reported by the assessee during the year under consideration are as under : Particulars Amount (Rs.) Operating income 160,51,01,082 Operating Cost 149,68,18,050 Operating Profit (Op. 10,82,83,032 Income – Op. Expenses) Operating / Net Margin 7.23% (OP/TC