ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

income, whereas dividend is not. Therefore, unless the nature of funds received by the Company is determined, it is difficult to say that amount paid in respect to funds is interest or dividend. 1.3 In Transfer Pricing, therefore, it is necessary to first determine as to whether funds received by the Company are in the nature of equity or debt

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

business income after excluding the transfer pricing adjustment located by assessee in the computation. • DRP also directed to grant TDS credit

M/S TYCO ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal being IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Transfer Pricing Provisions in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act').. 4. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred both in facts and law in upholding the adjustment of Rs. 41,615,026 with respect to the Power Systems segment of the Appellant as determined by the learned TPO holding that the international transactions do not satisfy

HARIYAPPA KOTIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

business. The PCIT has stated that the source of additional income declared of Rs.3,00,00,000 is not substantiated with evidence and should have been taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and based on this premise, he concluded that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income from business. ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 33 of 73 5.4 The assessee, being a Landowner has just contributed the said Land for development by the Developer and has neither involved/interfered in the project activities in any manner nor has a right to do so. The Developer has to do the entire development and construction

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income from business. ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 33 of 73 5.4 The assessee, being a Landowner has just contributed the said Land for development by the Developer and has neither involved/interfered in the project activities in any manner nor has a right to do so. The Developer has to do the entire development and construction

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

price. Accordingly, he submitted that, in order to attract the provisions of sec.92(1), an income should arise from an international transaction. He submitted that the assessee did not have any contractual right to receive “income” from the interest free advance given to the AE and hence there does not arise any income to the assessee from this transaction

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

business of manufacturing of construction chemicals and other allied products. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring nil income after setting-off the brought forward losses (The ITR — V and computation of income are enclosed at page no. 17 to 21 of paper book). The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and notice

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

income of ₹ 9,970,661,310 is assessed at ₹ 11,716,843,086. 02. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. The assessee is not pressing, ground No. [1] which is general, by ground No. [2] is contesting that the final assessment order passed is barred by limitation, general ground on transfer pricing adjustment

M/S. EYGBS (INDIA ) LLP (EARLIER KNOWN AS EYGBS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2342/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.8,11,70,000/- voluntarily and added the same to the total income while filing return of income. The assessee also claimed deduction u/s 10AA of the Act on the profits of business

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

transfer pricing adjustment made in the two years under consideration has to be negated only on the ground that such an adjustment was not made in the subsequent year. It is a well settled position in law that the assessment of every year stands on its own legs and the 'principle of res judicata' does not apply to income

CORP ATTIRE,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

transfer pricing adjustment made in the two years under consideration has to be negated only on the ground that such an adjustment was not made in the subsequent year. It is a well settled position in law that the assessment of every year stands on its own legs and the 'principle of res judicata' does not apply to income

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

business of the assessee only. It was accepted to be at arms length. Hence no transfer pricing adjustment was made during the course of original assessment proceedings. However, the AO has reopened the assessment of AY 2007-08 on noticing a subsequent decision rendered by Tribunal for another year, wherein T.P adjustment made in respect of identical reimbursement of expenses

M/S NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

business of the assessee only. It was accepted to be at arms length. Hence no transfer pricing adjustment was made during the course of original assessment proceedings. However, the AO has reopened the assessment of AY 2007-08 on noticing a subsequent decision rendered by Tribunal for another year, wherein T.P adjustment made in respect of identical reimbursement of expenses

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

business of the assessee only. It was accepted to be at arms length. Hence no transfer pricing adjustment was made during the course of original assessment proceedings. However, the AO has reopened the assessment of AY 2007-08 on noticing a subsequent decision rendered by Tribunal for another year, wherein T.P adjustment made in respect of identical reimbursement of expenses

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

business of the assessee only. It was accepted to be at arms length. Hence no transfer pricing adjustment was made during the course of original assessment proceedings. However, the AO has reopened the assessment of AY 2007-08 on noticing a subsequent decision rendered by Tribunal for another year, wherein T.P adjustment made in respect of identical reimbursement of expenses

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

Business Solutions Private Limited was also not found place in the search matrix of the learned transfer pricing officer. As we have already held that if the comparable companies are not finding place in the search matrix of the learned transfer pricing officer where there is no allegation that the search matrix adopted by the learned transfer pricing officer

MFX INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,82,08,643 (Software Development Segment) and Rs. 36,66,083 (Interest on delayed receivables); (b) not appreciating that there is no amendment to the definition of "income" and charging or computation provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business