DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

6. Date by which order u/s. 92CA(3) was to be passed – on or before 28.01.2014 7. Date of passing the order u/s. 92CA(3) – 30.01.2015 15. Before us the Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Honda Trading Corporation Vs. DCIT (supra) Page 10 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 wherein

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

6. Date by which order u/s. 92CA(3) was to be passed – on or before 28.01.2014 7. Date of passing the order u/s. 92CA(3) – 30.01.2015 15. Before us the Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Honda Trading Corporation Vs. DCIT (supra) Page 10 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 wherein

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

16A of that Act.” 6. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee argued that the provisions of section 50C are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. The assessee submitted that possession by transfer having been completed in 1989, the provisions of section 50C will not be applicable. According to the assessee, the provisions of section 50C of the Act comes with reference

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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

6. Date by which order u/s. 92CA(3) was to be passed – 28.01.2014 7. Date of passing the order u/s. 92CA(3) – 31.01.2014 Before us the Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Honda Trading Corporation Vs. DCIT (supra) wherein, it was held that the time limit specified u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory

SURESH SONNAHALLIPURA NARAYANASWAMY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5 (73) (7), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz & Shri. Laliet Kumar

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

BENEDICTA MARY MENDONCE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34,4A,, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made

M/S. TIVO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VEVEO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 379 of 2016, dated 21-7-16] also upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, in CC No. 4956/2017. 23.3. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that outstanding receivables are closely linked to main transaction

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act by concluding that the lease rentals, if treated to be as revenue expenses would be liable to Tax Deduction at Source ("TDS") under section 1941 of the Act, without Page 50 of 65 IT(TP)A No.285/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore appreciating the fact that the expense does not warrant

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘the TPO’ for short) towards the international transaction of provision of Information Technology Enabled Services (‘ITES’) to the Appellant’s Associated Enterprise (‘AE’), which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6,07,73,624/- in the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘the TPO’ for short) towards the international transaction of provision of Information Technology Enabled Services (‘ITES’) to the Appellant’s Associated Enterprise (‘AE’), which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6,07,73,624/- in the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income

HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustments in respect of the US transactions pursuant to MAP resolution dated 16.10.2020. The Ld.AR also submitted that the MAP resolution is passed in respect of the US transaction between assessee and the AE that took place during the calendar period for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 5. It is the submission

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

6,62,43,531 12,23,86,607 8,80,23,884 2018-19 12,23,86,607 5,92,84,235 10,89,18,707 7,27,52,135 (4,96,34,472) 2019-20 7,27,52,135 1,38,44,824 2,93,18,763 5,72,78,196 (1,54,73,939) 24.1 For the year

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO], who made a TP adjustment of Rs.93,44,92,380. The AO passed a draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment, besides making disallowance of ESOP expenses and discount expenses. The assessee raised objections before the DRP, who confirmed the order of the AO. Consequently final assessment order was passed, against which assessee is in appeal

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

transferred to the lessee (e.g., where the lessor obtains a right to sue for arrear instalments but no right to recovery of the asset), the transaction should be regarded as one of purchase by instalments and no deduction in respect of "hire" should be made. Depreciation should be allowed to the lessee on the entire purchase price

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

transferred to the lessee (e.g., where the lessor obtains a right to sue for arrear instalments but no right to recovery of the asset), the transaction should be regarded as one of purchase by instalments and no deduction in respect of "hire" should be made. Depreciation should be allowed to the lessee on the entire purchase price

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

transferred to the lessee (e.g., where the lessor obtains a right to sue for arrear instalments but no right to recovery of the asset), the transaction should be regarded as one of purchase by instalments and no deduction in respect of "hire" should be made. Depreciation should be allowed to the lessee on the entire purchase price