SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4 & 5 in for the AY 2010-11 and ITA No.1112/Bang/2022 for the AY 2012-13 (Two appeals only) in the case of Shri Reddy Veeranna and in ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 for the AY 2015-16 in the case of Smt. Reddy Sangeetha is with regard to treating the return of income filed by assessee in response to notice issued

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

Transfer Pricing Officer' was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Under this provision, the onus of computing ALP of the international transactions in certain cases was shifted to the TPO, who was supposed to pass his order under sub-section (3). There was no separate time limit for passing of the order

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

139, 147\nto 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was defined\nto mean those years which would

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

139, 147\nto 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. By virtue of the 2017 Amending\nAct, significant amendments came to be introduced in Section\n153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block\nbeing enlarged to ten AYs' consequent to the addition of the\nstipulation of “relevant assessment year” and which was defined\nto mean those years which would

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

price being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such finding. The issue is not whether the purchase price reflected in the books of account matches the purchase price stated to have been paid to other persons. The issue is whether the purchase price paid by the assessee is reflected as receipts by the recipients

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

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 it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction

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) West Zone, Mumbai and also that filed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratlam, who was the JAO at the relevant point of time. Mr. Mistry also took us through the affidavits in sur- rejoinder filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai (“DCIT”) and also the order sheet details filed by Respondents

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

Pricing Agreement, the assessee has filed modified ITR u/s 139 r.w.s. 92CD of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] on 19.10.2020 declaring income of Rs.23,19,09,830/-. The other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. 2.1 The assessee company is engaged in providing software development services including testing, infrastructure support and other related services

KAYUM RAZAK DHANANI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

139 (1) for assessment Page 4 of 13 year 2015 – 16 on 25th of August 2015 at a total income of ₹ 27,343,010/–. The assessee derives income from business and income from other sources. Pursuant to the search the notification under section 127 of the act was passed on 15/5/2018 centralising the case of the assessee. The notice under

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. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

transfer of properties”.\n5.18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs.\nITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended\nto tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained\nand what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the\nassessee cannot fastened with the liability

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 4.34 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

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

4,\nthe ld. ClT(A) has erred in holding that the Notice U/s 143(2) of the\nAct was not required to be issued since the return of income was on\n26.2.2021 in response to the Notice u/s 153C of the Act dated\n24-03-2020 which was said to be invalid without appreciating the fact\nthat