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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information

M/S. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

TRANSFER OF PRODUCT ENGINEERING SERVICES (PES) BUSINESS TO L&T TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED (LTTSL) AND WINDING UP OF GDA TECHNOLOGIES INC. (GDA INC.) As part of business restructuring undertaken within L&T Group, it was decided to consolidate the engineering services business under a separate subsidiary of L&T, L&T Technology Services Ltd. (LTTSL). Pursuant to this, the Company

M/S EMERSON AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS PVT. LTD,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

Section 144C. 6. Consequent to DRP's Direction, transfer Pricing officer-1(3)(1), Bangalore has passed the order u/s 92CA on 11.10.2018, and has concluded that an adjustment is required with regard to transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA: SN Description Adjustment u/s. 92 CA (In Rs) 1 Manufacturing Segment 13,15,83,4222 2 Trading & Distribution

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

Transfer Price at Rs.832.31 per metric ton was received by assessee in October, 2011. Therefore, the invoices were raised in respect of said lignite excavated during FY 2010-11 after that date i.e. October 2011. Both the expenses on mining operations and revenues on account of lignite excavated till completion of initial mine cut (as per the approved mine plan

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing. In holding so, the learned DRP referred various case laws. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned DRP/AO/TPO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us argued that the TPO erred in benchmarking the outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and proposing an adjustment

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant. 14. The lower authorities have erred in: (i) Adopting a flawed process in issuing notices u/s 133(6) and relying on the information collected without providing the Appellant the complete information or providing an opportunity to cross examine; (ii) Adopting inappropriate filters like one sided turnover filter, persistent loss making, 15% RPT filter

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant. 14. The lower authorities have erred in: (i) Adopting a flawed process in issuing notices u/s 133(6) and relying on the information collected without providing the Appellant the complete information or providing an opportunity to cross examine; (ii) Adopting inappropriate filters like one sided turnover filter, persistent loss making, 15% RPT filter

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act for AY 2014-15, it may be noted that the TPO has proposed adjustments to the ALP only on account of comparability analysis. It may be pertinent to note that no discussion has been made on the definition of operating cost" i.e which expenses would constitute operating cost

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

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing documentation of assessee, we note that, the assessee undertakes recording of transaction having fiscal year January to December, and the reporting for fiscal year 2016 ended on 01.07.2016. For this reason, there is a mention of acquisition of SanDisk by the assessee at page 151 of the paper book. However, as under Income tax Act, it is always

SRI. GIREESHSHASTRI SHANKARSHASTRI JEERE ,GAJENDRAGAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

114. PAN : AGUPJ 2460 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of PCIT, dated 17.02.2023, passed

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

114 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay).\nxxi. DCIT Vs. Maheswari Mega Ventures Limited (Hyderabad-\nITAT).\nxxii. Bellwether Microfinance Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, Hyderabad\n(2014) 47 taxmann.com 260 (Hyderabad-Trib.).\nFurther, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2,\nHyderabad in Assessee's own case for the A Y 2014-15 on account\nof the same investments deleted the addition

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

price which\nit would have fetched if sold in the open market. He\nobserved that the valuation of any property is based on\nthe fact as to what value the property would fetch if sold\nin the open market. Further if AO is not satisfied with\nworking of the assessee, he ought to have computed the\nFMV himself