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 Officer passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92-CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.? 17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Transfer Pricing Officer' was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Under this provision, the onus of computing ALP of the international transactions in certain cases was shifted to the TPO, who was supposed to pass his order under sub-section (3). There was no separate time limit for passing of the order

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

transfer the land\nto the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired.\"\n28. Section 29 deals with payment of compensation, which is extracted as\nunder:\n“29. Compensation: (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government\nunder this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition\ncompensation in accordance with the provisions

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

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

2,547,399,038, expenses reimbursement payable of ₹ 4,638,999, consultancy services provided to its AE and remuneration received of ₹ 13,823,504,210 and IT services and support services provided by its associated enterprises of ₹ 5,814,382,000 117/–. With the respect to the total international transactions of ₹ 4096 crores, the assessee adopted transactional net margin method

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

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

2) of section 40A;* (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 33 of 110 (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section

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)

Transfer Pricing Office / TPO") for determination of Arm's Length Price under section 92CA of the Act on 30.03.2022. Several notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act to the Assessee, which have been duly responded to. 3.7 The TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) on 29.01.2023, proposing an adjustment

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court