BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

182\nunder the provisions of section 115JB of the Act is assessed\nat Rs. 4,66,44,31,180/-.\n2. The assessee is a subsidiary of Biocon Ltd. engaged in the\ndevelopment, manufacture and commercialisation of\nbiosimilar. Assessee filed its\noriginal Return of Income on\n12/2/2021 which was revised on 31st of March 2021 and\ntax was payable on Book

SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

transfer pricing provisions. (vii) In any event, since the Assessee is compensated at a cost plus mark up in respect of the software development services rendered by it, there cannot be an allegation of the above manner. The benefit, if any should be irretrievable: (viii) It is submitted that the benefit or perquisite contemplated under the section means an irretrievable

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 92CA and has directly proceeded to treat AMP expenses as international transaction. This in our view mean that the TPO has accepted the entity level margins earned by the assessee with respect to Trading Segment but proceeded to make TP adjustment on AMP expenses. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India

TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE, 7(1)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.10,62,815 was retained. 6. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that there are foreign outward remittances to AE Tyco Electronics ETA Ltd. wherein assessee has not deducted tax at sources and further no evidence was provided that there is no element of income chargeable to tax in India in those

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

transfer pricing exercise)\ncannot negate the nature of the transaction. It would lead to an\nabsurd conclusion if, all else constant, the fact that no payment is\ndemanded negates accrual of income to the overseas entity. ......\n\n\".......The nomenclature or lesser-than-expected amount charged\nfor such services cannot change the nature of the services.\nIndeed, once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

transfer pricing exercise)\ncannot negate the nature of the transaction. It would lead to an\nabsurd conclusion if, all else constant, the fact that no payment is\ndemanded negates accrual of income to the overseas entity. ......"\n\".......The nomenclature or lesser-than-expected amount charged\nfor such services cannot change the nature of the services.\nIndeed, once it is established

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

transfer pricing exercise)\ncannot negate the nature of the transaction. It would lead to an\nabsurd conclusion if, all else constant, the fact that no payment is\ndemanded negates accrual of income to the overseas entity. ......\n\n\".......The nomenclature or lesser-than-expected amount charged\nfor such services cannot change the nature of the services.\nIndeed, once

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

transfer pricing, a vital factor in determining the arm's length pricing of assessee's international transactions. We have also noted that the assessee had specifically taken up the issue of appreciation of this unique 50:50 business model before the DRP in the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. As regards the assessment year

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

PLURALSIGHT LLC,UTAH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

182 N, Union Avenue Income-tax, Farmington, Vs. ASMT Circle-2(1), Utah, United States of America. Bangalore. PAN : AAHCP 5337 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, C.A Revenue by : Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 22.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

Pricing Agreement, the assessee has filed modified ITR u/s 139 r.w.s. 92CD of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] on 19.10.2020 declaring income of Rs.23,19,09,830/-. The other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. 2.1 The assessee company is engaged in providing software development services including testing, infrastructure support and other related services

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI vs. H R GAVIAPPA AND CO, BALLARI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed

transferred to the SPV. The learned CIT(A) has not\nappreciated this aspect.\n4.0. On the issue of compensation which has been claimed by the\nassessee as expenditure in this assessment year, the executive portion\nof the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on various dates are\nimportant and those are required to be elaborated not only

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