EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

10,4\n627,11,02,6\n1881,33,07,8\n-18\n34\n34\n09\n25\n21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed\ndepreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/-\nonly.\n22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the\nvaluation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill\nappeared

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8\n-18\n34\n34\n09\n25\n21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed\ndepreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/-\nonly.\n22.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the\nvaluation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill\nappeared

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

price. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where the computation of income under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A) or the determination of the allowance for any expense or interest under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A), or the determination of any cost or expense allocated or apportioned, or, as the case

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

section 144C of the learned dispute resolution panel on 20 May 2024. We find that as per para No 2.3 the learned DRP has directed the learned TPO to adopt the figure for the learning solutions segment and compute the segmental margin. The answer of the learned that TPO is that that only the TPO has adopted the figures

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

10. Accordingly, the software development segment where the margin of the assessee was computed at 16.31% the arm's-length price was considered to be 25,71,95,842 compared to actual price received by the assessee of ₹ 239,145,955/– resulting into a shortfall of Rs.1,80,49,887. In market support services segment, the arm's-length price

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

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

35 of 50 23rd August 2023. No explanation on behalf of the department is forthcoming. We have to draw adverse inference. 20. Section 144C of the Act is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class of assessees, i.e., ‘eligible assessee’. Section 144C of the Act was inserted in the Finance Act of 2009 and came into effect

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

10 different types of international transaction amounting to ₹ 5,086,098,130/–. No other transfer pricing adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore

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

price is fixed between the parties at the time of entering into an agreement to sell. Thereafter, the buyer investigates the title of the vendor, payment is made and the document of transfer, generally, a conveyance is executed and registered in favour of the buyer. b) Based on the language of section 50C, prior to its amendment

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the\ndetermination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions. The TPO noted that as per the Transfer Pricing (TP)\ndocuments furnished for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, the\nAssessee had entered into the following International Transactions\nwith its AEs:\nInternational Transactions as per 3CEB\nParticulars\nReceived/\nReceivables

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35 The learned AO/TPO has made TP adjustment in respect of Sales Promotion expenses paid to East Bengal Football Team ignoring the submissions and various judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant during the course of Transfer Pricing Proceedings 36 Without prejudice to the above, the learned TPO erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/-3% range prescribed

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

transfer pricing, a vital factor in determining the arm's length pricing of assessee's international transactions. We have also noted that the assessee had specifically taken up the issue of appreciation of this unique 50:50 business model before the DRP in the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. As regards the assessment year

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) and is benchmarking analysis are correct. We have noted that, though the Id. AR has relied upon a number of decisions of Tribunal/co- ordinate bench. We have noted that in a recent decision of Tribunal in Wills Processing Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on comparability, the Tribunal held as under: We though in light of our aforesaid

KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 92B of the Act. b. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Act provides for taxing only real income whether received or accrued under the normal provisions. c. Erred in not appreciating the fact that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on a hypothetical and notional basis unless there is material on record that there has been under

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed