BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

16 results for “section 68”+ Section 35Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi59Mumbai36Bangalore16Hyderabad10Chennai6Pune5Karnataka5Kolkata4Ahmedabad3Chandigarh2Telangana1Cochin1Jaipur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 92C20Section 143(3)19Transfer Pricing15Comparables/TP12Section 10A11Addition to Income7Section 144C(5)6Section 14A4Section 143(2)4

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

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

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

Section 1444
Section 144C(13)4
TP Method4

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

In the result, assessee’s C

ITA 553/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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

M/S GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 73/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit (T.P) A No.73/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Gxs India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd., 436, Infinity, Off Koramangala, Indiranagar, Irr, Challaghatta-Domlur, Bangalore-560071 ….Appellant Pan Aabcg7972P Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. It (T.P) A No.64/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (By Revenue) Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Pradeep Kumar,Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar,CIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

68,748 and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and Notices under Section 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared form time to time, furnished the details and produced the Books of Accounts. The Assessing Officer has verified the financial statements and found that there

M/S INTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2722/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri M.P.Lohia C A and Shri Chavalli Narayanan CAFor Respondent: Smt R.Premi JCIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

35A with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the Draft Assessment order. The DRP considered the objections and has passed the order u/sec144C(5)of the Act dt28- 112014.Further the TPO based on the directions of DRP determined the TP adjustment of Rs.44,06,38,914/-.Whereas AO has passed the final assessment order under Section

M/S INTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2723/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri M.P.Lohia C A and Shri Chavalli Narayanan CAFor Respondent: Smt R.Premi JCIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

35A with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the Draft Assessment order. The DRP considered the objections and has passed the order u/sec144C(5)of the Act dt28- 112014.Further the TPO based on the directions of DRP determined the TP adjustment of Rs.44,06,38,914/-.Whereas AO has passed the final assessment order under Section

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

ITA 269/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-1 (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

68,18,050 Operating Profit (Op. 10,82,83,032 Income – Op. Expenses) Operating / Net Margin 7.23% (OP/TC) 4.4 The assessee conducted a TP Study for the international transactions in respect of its software development activity and applying CUP Method as the Most Appropriate Method (‘MAM’) selected 23 companies as comparables to it after applying certain filters. Based

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating on the following grounds raised by the Assessee during the DRP proceedings for the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited ("Infosys

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating on the following grounds raised by the Assessee during the DRP proceedings for the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited ("Infosys

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating on the following grounds raised by the Assessee during the DRP proceedings for the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited ("Infosys

SAMI LABS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 186/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

section 92C of IT Act, DEPB benefit is operating revenue includable in arriving at operating profit. Thereafter he submitted that the order passed by DRP u/s. 154 r.w.s. 144C of IT Act on 16.03.2015 is available on pages 144 to 149 of paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to Para no. 4 on page

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

35A [Pg.75 to 80 of Appeal set]. iii. The requirement for such adjustment was upheld by the Delhi Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Honda Trading Corp India (P.) Ltd1, TS 345-ITAT-2013 stating that an appropriate adjustment to remove abnormal and huge fluctuation in foreign exchange rate against Indian currency, has to be allowed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

35A filed on April 16, 2015) on the ground that the Employee Cost to sales is 83.69% and hence it passes the filter. However, no specific mention of the same has been made in the DR P Directions for rejection of the same. Page 9 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 Other Corporate Tax Matters - Additional Foreign

M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

35A filed on April 16, 2015) on the ground that the Employee Cost to sales is 83.69% and hence it passes the filter. However, no specific mention of the same has been made in the DR P Directions for rejection of the same. Page 9 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 Other Corporate Tax Matters - Additional Foreign

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 252/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

35A. 33. The factual details with regard to ground No.15 are that the assessee provided ITeS services to one of its customers viz., Remote Diagnostic Technologies (‘RDT’) who supplied specific equipment worth Rs.3,59,722/- to the assessee for testing the functionality of ITeS services provided by the assessee to the RDT. Since this was only provided for testing

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

68% of imports in AY 12- 13, Thailand Import chart is at Pg No. 1364 of PB-III). The disaster resulted in major disruptions in supply chains of Appellant causing shortage of components for automobile manufacturing. During such period, the appellant had to procure these parts and components at higher price and incur substantial additional cost. Vehicle price list

SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) without appreciating that a) there is no amendment to the definition of "income" and charging or computation provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X; and b) passing the orders without considering