KOCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

13 ITR (Trib) 422 (Mumbai) (page 432) : "We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of the arm's length price of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'nil' is his perception that the asses see did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts of IT(TP)A.1481/B/2010

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

13,72,23,908 to the transfer price of interest paid on compulsory convertible debentures ("CCD")by following an ad-hoc approach of using LIBOR rates thereby grossly erred in: 3.1. upholding the rejection of comparability analysis provided in the Transfer Pricing documentation in relation to interest paid on ITA No. 2006/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos. 63 & 84/Bang/2015

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

13,72,23,908 to the transfer price of interest paid on compulsory convertible debentures ("CCD")by following an ad-hoc approach of using LIBOR rates thereby grossly erred in: 3.1. upholding the rejection of comparability analysis provided in the Transfer Pricing documentation in relation to interest paid on ITA No. 2006/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos. 63 & 84/Bang/2015

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

13) r.w.s 144B on 01.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 and 28.07.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19.\nPage 2 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n2. The Ld.AR submitted that the brief facts leading to the transfer pricing adjustment as well as the corporate tax additions are identical for both the years under consideration. At the outset, he submitted that

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

13 of 19 different dates, in its subsidiary company ANNPL). The total number of shares of ANNPL was 153505750 out of which the assessee's shareholding was 99.88%. Pursuant to the share reduction scheme there was a reduction in share capital of ANNPL form 153340900 to 10000 and thus the shares of the Assessee were reduced from

M/S.SOFTTEK INDIA PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 220(6) of the Act. We are of the opinion that this was not permissible in law.” 8. On the basis of the above said judgment it was contented that the initial reference was made to ACIT transfer pricing (2)(2), Bangalore. However the order has been passed by the DCIT transfer pricing (2)(2) u/s. 92CA

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

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

13 November\n2011 entered into a JDA with a developer to demolish and\nconstruct residential apartments. As per the JDA, the assessee was\nto receive some monetary consideration along with 50% of the built-\nup area. Subsequently, the assessee executed a POA on 17 August\n2012 granting the developer the authority to convey, sell, transfer\nthe property. It was contended

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price of Rs.\n32,97,500/- and got registered in the year 2017 at market value of Rs. 52,74,186/-\nand the stamp valuation and registration fee of Rs. 2,94,000/- was paid. Further\nthe AO has observed that the assessee has not furnished bank account details\nincluding the foreign bank account highlighting the payments relating to purchase

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

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. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra