ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

transfer pricing adjustment to the value of international transaction; 16. without prejudice to above, erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Assessee vis-à-vis the comparables. Adjustment of INR 35,67,86,587 towards selling, marketing and distribution expense incurred by the Appellant (treated as AMP expenditure) 17. erred

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

Price for Marketing Support Services 86,09,113 4. Valuation of Intellectual Property (‘IP’) transferred to AE 342,78,18,865 Total adjustment u/s 92CA 344,48,62,575 IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 15 of 21 5. Disallowance of advertising, marketing & promotion 3,48,14,372 expenses us 37 6. Disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), , BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

transfer pricing study, the assessee chose the following comparables whose arithmetic mean is 9.17% Sl.No Weighted Name of the company 2011 2012* 2013* Average 1 Caliber Point Business 16.90 8.04 6.86 10.04 Solutions Limited 2 Cosmic Global Limited 8.06 40.73 - 26.49 3 In House Productions Limited 10.50 7.89 - 9.04 4 Informed Technologies India 11.67 8.63 10.06 Limited 5 Jindal Intellicom

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

transfer pricing study, the assessee chose the following comparables whose arithmetic mean is 9.17% Sl.No Weighted Name of the company 2011 2012* 2013* Average 1 Caliber Point Business 16.90 8.04 6.86 10.04 Solutions Limited 2 Cosmic Global Limited 8.06 40.73 - 26.49 3 In House Productions Limited 10.50 7.89 - 9.04 4 Informed Technologies India 11.67 8.63 10.06 Limited 5 Jindal Intellicom

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 133(6) notice cannot take precedence over the annual report. In the present case, as stated above, the annual report clearly reflects that the Company renders diverse services which are high end and not comparable to the software development services rendered by the Appellant. In Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Order dated 28.07.2022 passed by this

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 45(4) of the Act. In that case also the assessee received a share of goodwill. The Hon’ble High Court held that receipt of share value of goodwill cannot be subjected to capital gains tax as there was no transfer of goodwill to the firm. The Hon’ble High Court dealt the whole issue as under:- 12. Learned

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 45(4) of the Act. In that case also the assessee received a share of goodwill. The Hon’ble High Court held that receipt of share value of goodwill cannot be subjected to capital gains tax as there was no transfer of goodwill to the firm. The Hon’ble High Court dealt the whole issue as under:- 12. Learned

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

151 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income only on 17/11/2021i.e. almost after 11 months and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee calling for certain details, and in response to the same

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

151 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income only on 17/11/2021i.e. almost after 11 months and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee calling for certain details, and in response to the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. ANUSHKA REALTY INC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

151 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income only on 17/11/2021i.e. almost after 11 months and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee calling for certain details, and in response to the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. ANUSHKA REALTY INC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

151 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income only on 17/11/2021i.e. almost after 11 months and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee calling for certain details, and in response to the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. ANUSHKA REALTY INC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

151 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income only on 17/11/2021i.e. almost after 11 months and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee calling for certain details, and in response to the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. ANUSHKA REALTY INC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

151 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income only on 17/11/2021i.e. almost after 11 months and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee calling for certain details, and in response to the same

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

price was fixed in 2009. 2. Facts of the case are that for the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed a return of income on 16.10.2016 Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 2 of 25 declaring an income of Rs.6,39,86,840/-. The return was originally processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing documentation of assessee, we note that, the assessee undertakes recording of transaction having fiscal year January to December, and the reporting for fiscal year 2016 ended on 01.07.2016. For this reason, there is a mention of acquisition of SanDisk by the assessee at page 151 of the paper book. However, as under Income tax Act, it is always

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

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the revenue are\ndismissed

price.\n\n2. All significant risk and rewards of ownership have been\ntransferred to the buyer.\n\n3. The seller retains no effective control of the goods transferred.\n\n4. There is no significant uncertainty regarding the amount of\nthe consideration that will be derived from sale of goods.\n\n10.3 The guidance note on accounting for real estate transactions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Officer. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by contending that the Appellant is liable to deduct tax on ESOP cross charge payments under both Section 192 and Section 195 of the Act, against settled principles of law, without appreciating that the same would result in double taxation of same amount

M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Officer. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by contending that the Appellant is liable to deduct tax on ESOP cross charge payments under both Section 192 and Section 195 of the Act, against settled principles of law, without appreciating that the same would result in double taxation of same amount