M/S SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

AC) 37.34 247.67 69.34 948068 65734295 285 13.1 2 Reg rect 317 corn Unit Assy 70.49 382.51 108.49 874949 94920417 491 453 15.56 3 Spark Unit Assy 6241 7.33 457.47 5783.53 785.47 13008 10217333 6569 4 Generator Control Unit Comp 13078 11.77 1539.28 11538.72 2944.28 15360 45224150 14483 5 Inverter Total 216137271 Accordingly, an amount

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

Transfer Scheme), Rule 2001 and is not required to and has not been strictly preparing its audited annual account as per Parts II and III of Schedule-6 of the Companies Act, 1956. 24.6 Further contention of the Learned AR remained that prior to the amendment to sub-section (2) of sec. 115JB of the Income

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

1 has held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority

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

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

Transfer Scheme), Rule 2001 and is not required to and has not been strictly preparing its audited annual account as per Parts II and III of Schedule-6 of the Companies Act, 1956. 24.6 Further contention of the Learned AR remained that prior to the amendment to sub-section (2) of sec. 115JB of the Income

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

prices, cloth subsidy, festival gift, gas subsidy, etc. It is submitted that, apart from these, there are certain expenses of social obligation for the employee, which assessee has to meet, like conducting the marriage of self and children. The assessee contributes portion of expenditure by giving marriage gifts and contribute towards education of children limited to two per family. This

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

prices, cloth subsidy, festival gift, gas subsidy, etc. It is submitted that, apart from these, there are certain expenses of social obligation for the employee, which assessee has to meet, like conducting the marriage of self and children. The assessee contributes portion of expenditure by giving marriage gifts and contribute towards education of children limited to two per family. This

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld AO erred in not allowing set off of current year losses and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 4,98,73,540 and Rs. 4,59,11,799 aggregating to Rs. 9,57,85,339 Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of Corporate Guarantee provided by the assessee on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (AE) without charging the guarantee fees. 11. As per 9CEB Report and TP document, the assessee has reported the following international transactions : 8 IT(TP)A Nos.1294/Bang/2012 & 166/Bang/2014 International Amount Paid / Amount Transactions Payable (Rs.) Received/ Receivable (Rs.) Provision of management

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

transfer of shares by the assessee and others on 18.01.2017 at a purchase price of Rs.28 Crores and immediately they have paid Rs.3 Crores by cheque towards advance consideration as under: i. Rs 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) paid vide Cheque bearing No 149250 Dated 18-01-2017 drawn on Axis Bank. Chitradurga, to the First Seller

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

1) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act relating to the computation of income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” . (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made

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

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

12 viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book- keeping, an entry is made about a "hypothetical income", which does not materialise. Where income has, in fact, been received and is subsequently given

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

12 of 35 risk adjustment while computing the ALP for international transactions. According to assessee, assessee is a captive contract IT enabled service provider to its AE. Therefore, being a mere captive service provider, the assessee does not own any interest in intangibles. It provides mere service in return of fixed mark up on cost incurred in granting of services

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

12 of 35 risk adjustment while computing the ALP for international transactions. According to assessee, assessee is a captive contract IT enabled service provider to its AE. Therefore, being a mere captive service provider, the assessee does not own any interest in intangibles. It provides mere service in return of fixed mark up on cost incurred in granting of services

M/S. WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2442/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16

section 92CA of the Act as per the communication/ order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the directions of DRP, Page 3 of 13 IT(TP)A No.2442/Bang/2019 Sl.No. Description Amount (in Rs.) 1 Arm’s Length Price difference in the 7,29,91,441/- royalty paid 2 Arm’s Length Price difference in the 175,84,64,764/- Distribution

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

1 (SC). iv. CIT vs Modipon Ltd., (2018) 400 ITR 1 (SC). v. CIT vs TJayavhandran (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC). vi. Pr.CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17347/2019. vii. Pr.CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITA 940/2016(DEL) dated 17/05/2018. viii. CIT vs United Breweries Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 4546 (KARN

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

AC 588 HL, Bansilalmotilal's case and Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v Dewan Bahadur S.L. Mathias. 10.3 Therefore an income could arise or accrue from a source in India when either of the following conditions are satisfied: a) Paid by a person established in India (situs of payer) or Derived from work performed in India (situs of activity