QUINTILES RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

4) of section 92C in conformity with the Arm's\nlength price determined under sub-section (3) of\nsection 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer.\n\nThese amendments will take effect from 1st June,\n2007 and shall also be applicable in cases where a\nreference to the Transfer Pricing Officer was made prior\nto 1.7.2007 but the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

153,562 was 11. computed against the price received of ₹ 105,338,099 resulting into a shortfall adjustment of ₹ 2,815,469. In the ITeS segment the arm's-length price was considered at ₹ 2,183,693,433/– 12. against the actual price received of ₹ 2,078,292,232 resulting into a shortfall of ₹ 105,401,201/–. 13. The learned

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

4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 153 or Section 153-B, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,— (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall

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

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

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 fall beyond the six year block

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

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 fall beyond the six year block

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

153,514, as\nagainst returned income of INR 1,675,425,240;\nTransfer pricing grounds\n2.\nLd. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of\nthe Hon'ble DRP, erred in making addition of INR 1,040,059,562 to\ntotal income of Appellant on pretext that price charged was lower\nthan arm's length price determined for software

M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Transfer Pricing The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) [PCIT]j erred in invoking the powers under Sec. 263 to extend the statutory time limit given to the AO/TPO in completing assessment, which is illegal exercise of power; 2. The PCIT erred in invoking the power under Section

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 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

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)

153 of the Act and therefore, is void-ab-initio, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 4. Assessment not in conformity with provisions of section 144 and 144B of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the best judgement assessment under

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing (“TP”) adjustment of INR 4,27,47,621 to the returned income of the Appellant and in holding that the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (“AEs”) in the manufacturing segment were not at arm’s length. Rejection of Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method adopted as the most appropriate method by the Appellant

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

transfer pricing segment was restored to the AO / TPO to examine whether the assesee had recovered expenditure incurred in respect of warranty services with the 27 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. mark-up of 5%. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-2010, which has confirmed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

transfer of properties”.\n4.34 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

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

section 153 of the Act, and is thus void-ab-initio, illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. MANUFACTURING SEGMENT 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/ Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in making the transfer pricing adjustment