HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

transfer pricing adjustment and thereafter the draft assessment order was issued on 26.12.2017. The company filed a review application before ld. DRP on 25.1.2018 against the draft assessment order. The ld. DRP issued its direction vide an order dated 14.9.2018. The TPO accordingly issued an order giving effect to ld. DRP’s direction. Finally, the assessment proceedings

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Transfer Pricing Officers tend to take a conservative view. The correction of such view take very long time with the existing appellate structure. With a view to provide speedy disposal, it is proposed to amend the Income-tax Act so as to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the income-tax department and accordingly, section 144C has been proposed

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

transfer of 79 acres of land, irrespective of the Stamp Duty Valuation of the land. This price was fixed by the Hon. Arbitrator by taking into consideration all the facts of the case, including the Agreement of Sale executed in June 2009. Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 7 of 25 3.5 She submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer however

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify the additions made in the assessment order. It is also not correct

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify the additions made in the assessment order. It is also not correct

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify the additions made in the assessment order. It is also not correct

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify the additions made in the assessment order. It is also not correct

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify the additions made in the assessment order. It is also not correct

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

assessment order, duly considered the above said 3 decisions and confirmed the disallowance originally made in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 22.3 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the records. We notice that the coordinate bench has considered an identical issue in assessment year 2008-09 and the matter

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

reopening, though the appellant in its letter filed against the issue of notice u/s. 148, requested for a copy. e) The Supreme Court in G. K. N. Driveshafts [2003] 259 ITR 19 had specifically directed that when a notice under section 148 of the said Act is issued and the noticee files a return and seeks reasons for the issuance

M/S. TOYOTA INDUSTRIES ENGINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2585/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 6.1 In view of the above binding precedent in assessee’s own case, we direct the AO to restrict the TP adjustment only to the AE related transactions of the assessee. Ordered accordingly. Ground No.12: 7. Ground No.12 in the main grounds of appeal

MOHAMMED ABDUL NAJEEB,GULBARGA, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

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

price\nreceived by the seller of the goods for the\nacquisition of which assessee has already\nincurred the cost. It is the realisation of\nexcess over the cost incurred that only\nforms part of the profit included in the\nconsideration of sales. Reliance in this\nregard is placed on the following judicial\nprecedents:\na) CIT\nV/S\nBAHUBALI\nNEMINATH\nMUTTIN\nKARNATAKA

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

reopening the assessment, the assessee raised its objections on 16.09.2015. The objections were rejected by the AO vide his letter dated 04.01.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

assessment under section 153A. Therefore, the seizure of such material is illegal. The AO cannot rely upon such material whose seizure is illegal and the hence, assessment is void ab initio. Therefore, addition made on account of such seized material is not sustainable, 13.25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

assessment under section 153A. Therefore, the seizure of such material is illegal. The AO cannot rely upon such material whose seizure is illegal and the hence, assessment is void ab initio. Therefore, addition made on account of such seized material is not sustainable, 13.25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

assessment under section 153A. Therefore, the seizure of such material is illegal. The AO cannot rely upon such material whose seizure is illegal and the hence, assessment is void ab initio. Therefore, addition made on account of such seized material is not sustainable, 13.25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

assessment under section 153A. Therefore, the seizure of such material is illegal. The AO cannot rely upon such material whose seizure is illegal and the hence, assessment is void ab initio. Therefore, addition made on account of such seized material is not sustainable, 13.25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

assessment under section 153A. Therefore, the seizure of such material is illegal. The AO cannot rely upon such material whose seizure is illegal and the hence, assessment is void ab initio. Therefore, addition made on account of such seized material is not sustainable, 13.25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

reopening of assessment. 3. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi should have quashed the order passed by Assessing Officer or atleast should have deleted