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

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

144C(8) of the Act 4 IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 which clearly states that the DRIP shall not issue any direction for further enquiry and passing of assessment order. 5.7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned ACIT has erred in law and on fact in not taking cognizance of the additional evidence submitted by the Appellant

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

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

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

144C(8) of the Act. Similarly, the DRP erred in directing the TPO to apply 75% export earning filter and directed to exclude ICRA IT(TP)A.No.307/Bang/2015 & IT(TP)A.No.200/Bang/2015 & CO 100/Bang/2015 Akamai Technoloiges (I) Pvt.Ltd. Online Ltd., and Sundaram Business Services Ltd. (Ground Nos. 2 and 3) (b) The DRP erred in directing the AO to exclude

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

144C(8) of the Act. Similarly, the DRP erred in directing the TPO to apply 75% export earning filter and directed to exclude ICRA IT(TP)A.No.307/Bang/2015 & IT(TP)A.No.200/Bang/2015 & CO 100/Bang/2015 Akamai Technoloiges (I) Pvt.Ltd. Online Ltd., and Sundaram Business Services Ltd. (Ground Nos. 2 and 3) (b) The DRP erred in directing the AO to exclude

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

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. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2015-16 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The assessee is engaged in different types of business activities, viz., software development services and IT services; manufacture of Vanaspati/Hydro generated oils; toilet soaps; lighting products; pharmaceuticals & Neutraceutical products; leather

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

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

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi)\nPage 10 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17\n(Bombay)\n6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243\n(Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed\nBom HC decision in Neo Sports

INGERSOLL - RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1529/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.35, Kiadb Indl. Area, Circle 11(4), Banglaore. Bidadi, Bangalore-562 109 Appellant Respondent.

Section 144C(5) rws 144C(8) of the Act vide order dt.28.9.2010. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under :- 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or trading in air compressors, feeder crushers, loaders, vibratory compactors, light towers, utility vehicles and pavers, filed its return of income on 21.11.2006 declaring total income

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.03.2021. IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 110 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring

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

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/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

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)

8,71,69,772) 17. Levy of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to INR 74,420 17.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in levying interest of Rs. 74,420 under section 234D of the Act and the Appellant denies its liability