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

160\nNalapad Hotels and Convention Centre\nand Brigade Enterprises Ltd. Dated\n17.1.2008\nPage No 169 | General Power of Attorney dated\nto 173\n17.01.2008\nPage No 174 | Supplementary Agreement between\nto 179\nNalapad Hotels and Convention Centre\nand Brigade Enterprises Ltd. Dated\n5.7.2012\nPage No 180 | General Power of Attorney dated\n08.05.2006\n7.21 Now we examine the provisions of section

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:-

section 144C(10) of the Act. 2.Determination of arm's length price by the Ld. TPO in relation to the Manufacturing Segment The Ld. DRP and Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the value of international transaction of manufacturing activity, as recorded in the books of account, at an arm's length price amounting to INR 160

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

160 new workmen who completed 300 days, which was also less than 10% of the existing workmen as on 1st April 2010. Consequently, the AO concluded that the conditions for claiming a deduction under Section 80JJAA were not met. Hence, the AO disallowed the deduction claim of ₹21,16,54,868/- and made a corresponding addition to the total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

160 new workmen who completed 300 days, which was also less than 10% of the existing workmen as on 1st April 2010. Consequently, the AO concluded that the conditions for claiming a deduction under Section 80JJAA were not met. Hence, the AO disallowed the deduction claim of ₹21,16,54,868/- and made a corresponding addition to the total income

MAVENIR SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 453/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mavenir Systems Pvt. Ltd., Building Beach E1 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Manyata Embassy Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Hebbal Kr Circle – 4 (1)(1), Puram Section, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaecm9663N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.04.2022 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.Ar Has Relied On The Specific Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Which Are As Under:

160/- OTHER TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE TP STUDY Other Payables Rs. 2,66,38,856/- Other Receivables Rs. 8,55,46,525/- Trade Receivables Rs.56,29,06,887/- 2.3 The Ld.TPO noted that assessee had computed its margin at 15.02% by using OP/OC as the PLI. It was observed from the transfer pricing study that assessee had selected 12 comparables

UXC INDIA IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act and; (ii) disallowing amount of Rs.65,65,463/- claimed as depreciation on leasehold premises on the basis that the Assessee had not demonstrated that the same were put to use. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which, vide its directions dated 19.09.2019, partly allowed the objections raised by the Assessee

IMS HEALTH ANALYTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

160\n- para 9 onwards)\n9. The Id. A.R. submitted that Infosys BPO Limited should be rejected as a\ncomparable company as this company is functionally different and\ntherefore ought to be rejected. Further, Infosys BPO had presence of\nintangibles, brand value, subcontracting expenses as compared to the\nAssessee who did not possess the same.\n^ Functionally dissimilar- business process

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

transfer of money, but the\nTribunal rightly held that there were independent transactions\nand had nothing to do with the MOU. On the basis of aforesaid,\nit was held that no substantial question of law arises.\n5.23 The case of ld. Counsel was that there should be some\ntangible material on record to show that the purchases were not\nmade

M/S NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (JCIT) SPECIAL RANGE-5 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.2943/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Northern Operating Services The Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, Income-Tax, Special Range 5 V. Rmz Ecospace, Campus 1C Bangalore. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn1652J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2023 Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 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 30.08.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Transaction Based Business Process Outsourcing Services To Its Group Companies. For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Income Of Rs.68,09,26,340. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 29.08.2015. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.30,49,62,139. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order (DAO)incorporating the TP adjustment suggested by the TPO. Apart from the TP adjustment, the A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.1,07,29,828 claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The expenditure claimed was towards Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). 3. Aggrieved

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(Tp)A No.1488/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 144C(13) of the Act on 29.01.2018. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) and he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and she has filed written synopsis for inclusion

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

transferred freely.\nHence, the decision in the above case clearly does not apply\nto the facts of our case and the learned assessing officer failed to\ntake this difference into consideration.\n10. CIT Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd 326\nITR 0001\nIn this case, the Hon'ble supreme court finally held that “for\nattracting Sec. 14A, there

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

160 taxmann.com 1056 (Delhi-Trib.).\n6. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) Vs. OM Sons Marketing\n(P.) Ltd. (2024) 158 taxmann.com 175 (Amritsar-Trib.).\n7. ThinkstationsLearing (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2023) 155 taxmann.com\n451 (Delhi-Trib.).\n8. Deputy Commissioner\nof Income-tax,\nCircle-11(1)\nVs.\nHometrailBuildtech (P.) Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 578 (Delhi-\nTrib.).\n9. Asst. Commissioner

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

160 (Guj.) h) Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del.) i) Gayatri Microns Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 318 (Guj.) j) BDR Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 529 (Del.) k) Alok Knit Exports Ltd v. DCIT (2021) 130 taxmann.com 457 (Bom) l) Spice Infotainment

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

160 (Guj.) h) Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del.) i) Gayatri Microns Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 318 (Guj.) j) BDR Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 529 (Del.) k) Alok Knit Exports Ltd v. DCIT (2021) 130 taxmann.com 457 (Bom) l) Spice Infotainment

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

160 (Guj.) h) Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del.) i) Gayatri Microns Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 318 (Guj.) j) BDR Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 529 (Del.) k) Alok Knit Exports Ltd v. DCIT (2021) 130 taxmann.com 457 (Bom) l) Spice Infotainment

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

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

160 lakhs were withdrawn from that account and transferred to the non-resident external deposit account of the assessee. But ld AO did not believe the claim of the assessee stating that assessee did not submit the fair valuation report of the equity shares at the time of the sale of those shares, hence, it difficult to ascertain the genuineness

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

160/-. The constriction was completed and the occupancy certificated was also obtained by M/s. Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore on 04/02/2017 and the assessee took position of thy property on 01/05/2018 and started paying the electricity charges. Therefore, the condition of the section 54 of the Act are fulfilled by the assessee. Further, the ld. A.R of the assessee