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

13 of 33 (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value

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

C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1539/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited., Income Tax, No.41, Bhimenahalli, MN Halli Post, Circle – 7(1)(1), Manchanayakanahalli B.O, Bidadi, Bangalore. Ramanagara. PAN – AAECT 1871 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

13. The principle of statutory construction invoked by Ms Ramachandran has no application in construing the expression "gross total income" in subsection (1) of Section 80-P. In view of the express provision defining the said expression in Section 80-B(5) for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, there is no scope for construing the said expression differently

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

13. The principle of statutory construction invoked by Ms Ramachandran has no application in construing the expression "gross total income" in subsection (1) of Section 80-P. In view of the express provision defining the said expression in Section 80-B(5) for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, there is no scope for construing the said expression differently

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

13. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that consequent upon search under section 132(1) of the Act on 13.01.2018, the notice was issued under section 153A of the Act on the basis of seized materials found in the form of bogus revenue expenditure claimed

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

13. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that consequent upon search under section 132(1) of the Act on 13.01.2018, the notice was issued under section 153A of the Act on the basis of seized materials found in the form of bogus revenue expenditure claimed

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

13. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that consequent upon search under section 132(1) of the Act on 13.01.2018, the notice was issued under section 153A of the Act on the basis of seized materials found in the form of bogus revenue expenditure claimed

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

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

C” BENCH, Bangalore BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Vice President AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM ITA No 1519 /Bang/2024 A. Y. 2020 – 21 Appellant Respondent M/s SAP India private The Deputy Commissioner of limited income tax Circle – 6 (1) (1), sixth floor, Bengaluru RMZ Ecoworld, second floor, Plot C1, 8A campus, BMTC building, Sarjapur Marathahalli 80 Feet Road, Outer Ring Road

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 analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

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 analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

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

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

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

13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pursuant to the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (the learned DRP) on 17 September 2024 under section 144C (5) of the Act wherein the total income of Page 2 of 20 the assessee was determined at ₹ 46,00,90,995/– as against the returned

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

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

price, justifies the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) analysed the interplay between transfer of shares and the resultant host of consequences which inter alia included the concept of controlling interest. The relevant portion from the judgement, as authored by Hon'ble justice K.S. Radhakrishnan

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

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

price, justifies the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) analysed the interplay between transfer of shares and the resultant host of consequences which inter alia included the concept of controlling interest. The relevant portion from the judgement, as authored by Hon'ble justice K.S. Radhakrishnan

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

1)(iv) as Scientific research expenses shall become academic and we are not adjudicating them”. Accordingly we partly allow the ground No. 4 to 4.4 raised by the assessee. 7. The fifth ground relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO/AO. In the original grounds of appeal that were filed before the Tribunal on 27.07.2021, the five aspects

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

c. March (31 days) Total : 61 days Now, as can be seen, extension of time limitation for making assessment cannot be 61 days and the legislature wouldn't have visualized or intended to give to the AO 61 days for passing the assessment order. 7. It is further submitted that, without prejudice to all of the above contentions