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 adjustments. 4. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2021. In response to the notice

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority;\n(e) records relating to the draft order;\n(f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and\n(g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it.\n(7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section

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

148 of the said Act are issued. f) Reliance is also placed on the decisions rendered in the following cases: • PCIT vs V. Ramaiah, 103 taxmann.com 201 (Kar) • PCIT vs V. Ramaiah, 103 taxmann.com 202 (SC) SLP dismissed • CIT vs Trend Electronics (Bom) ITA No.1867 of 2013 • PCIT vs Samcor Glass Ltd. & Anr (Delhi HC) Page

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

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37 of the I T Act. 16. The Learned AO erred in not giving TDS credit amounting to Rs.1,37,88,075/- and no reasons or explanations have been given for denying the credit. ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B& C 17. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, B& C of the Act. Further prays that

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

148 of the Act.. In the case on hand the asseseee has not filed valid return within the time allowed. Hence, the arguments submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee in regard to issue of notice u/s 143(2) are rejected. The case law relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee in the case

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 37 of the I T Act. 17.'The Learned AO/DRP erred in disallowing the written off receivables and advances of Rs. 1,63,36,390/- without objectively considering the explanation offered by the assessee. 18. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing the following proyisions for expenses amounting to Rs. 41,76,13,362/- on an entirely unsustainable reason

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

pricing addition of Rs.78.97\ncrores;\n(ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee\nhas assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax\nliabilities;\n(iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved\nunder Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating\ncompany ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

pricing addition of Rs.78.97\ncrores;\n(ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee\nhas assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax\nliabilities;\n(iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved\nunder Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating\ncompany ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BENGALURU vs. ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the Cross Objection is dismissed as infructuous

148 taxmann.com 467 (Delhi - Trib.) is\nmisplaced. In the said decision, the Tribunal was dealing with the issue\nrelating to correction of the operating margin (OP/OC) of the comparable\ncompany and not with the issue of functional comparability of the said\ncompany. Thus, the ratio laid down in the said case was confined to the\ncomputation of margins

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021. In view of the technical glitches in the new Income Tax e-filing portal, the return could not be filed online. Hence it was submitted manually on 17-06-2021, wherein the income returned remained the same, that is, Rs.6,39,86,840/-. Notices under section 142(1) were issued on various

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

148 of the act. It was further stated that tax could not have been collected by the revenue if it is not in accordance with the law. He submits that the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Sun engineering Ltd does not speak about not granting of the refund of taxes which is already deposited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO issued 142(1) notice on 27/08/21 to verify the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.9,90,81,453/- on payment basis u/s. 37 of the act. The assessee vide correspondence dated 09.09.2021 submitted details, but was silent on the issue. The Ld.AO recorded that the assessee did not file any supporting evidence