UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses. (ii) Assessee has been bearing substantial portion of the fees paid to ICC for acquiring sponsorship rights even though benefit of the same is derived by the other entities of the world. 88. Aggrieved by the addition proposed by the AO, the assessee had filed objections before the DRP. The DRP vide

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Transfer Pricing Officer' was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Under this provision, the onus of computing ALP of the international transactions in certain cases was shifted to the TPO, who was supposed to pass his order under sub-section (3). There was no separate time limit for passing of the order

M/S. SUMUKHA HOLDINGS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 69 to the facts and circumstances of the case is not correct. In the present case, there is no investment and there is no payment made by the assessee and in such circumstances, the addition made u/s. 69 is not correct. In support of our above finding, we also relied on the two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

pricing adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. The details of the additions proposed by the Ld.AO are as under: Total income as per ITR Rs. 39,82,64,080/- Add: TP addition u/s 92CA Rs.41,59,26,724/- Add: Disallowance u/s 80G Rs.5,50,000/- Add: Disallowance u/s 40A(7) Rs. 1,84,63,980/- Total

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for.\n31. Accordingly

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price in relation to international transactions. 5.2 The TPO in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 11/05/2023 proposed upward adjustment of Rs. 35,58,85,941/- . IT(TP)A No.1587/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 19 and Rs. 11,21,05,193/- towards software development services and IT Enabled services respectively. 6. The aggrieved assessee preferred

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

193 of the Paper Book ITA No.955/Bang/2024]. This is because\nthe super built-up area includes both undivided interest in land as well as\nthe built-up area. In this manner the learned CIT[A] has held that the\ndeemed value of consideration for the transfer of the undivided share of\nland in the project pertaining to the developer share

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

193 of the Paper Book ITA No.955/Bang/2024]. This is because\nthe super built-up area includes both undivided interest in land as well as\nthe built-up area. In this manner the learned CIT[A] has held that the\ndeemed value of consideration for the transfer of the undivided share of\nland in the project pertaining to the developer share

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

193 of the Paper Book ITA No.955/Bang/2024]. This is because\nthe super built-up area includes both undivided interest in land as well as\nthe built-up area. In this manner the learned CIT[A] has held that the\ndeemed value of consideration for the transfer of the undivided share of\nland in the project pertaining to the developer share

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

193/- and capital gain of Rs. 4,25,82,091/- only. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the claim of huge loss. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to explain how it incurred such a huge loss in one year, the nature of the losses and the reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

193 TTJ 685 (Bangalore - Trib.)[25-04-2018]where the Tribunal has held that - "49. As far as the appeal by the revenue is concerned, the issue involved is with regard to quantification of the profit margin of comparable companies chosen by the AO. On the revenue's appeal, the learned DR relied on the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

193 TTJ 685 (Bangalore - Trib.)[25-04-2018]where the Tribunal has held that - "49. As far as the appeal by the revenue is concerned, the issue involved is with regard to quantification of the profit margin of comparable companies chosen by the AO. On the revenue's appeal, the learned DR relied on the order

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

193/- and capital gain of Rs.4,25,82,091/- only. The case of the\nassessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the\nclaim of huge loss.\n4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was\nasked to explain how it incurred such a huge loss in one year, the nature\nof the losses and the reason thereof

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

193/- and capital gain of Rs.4,25,82,091/- only. The case of the\nassessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the\nclaim of huge loss.\n4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was\nasked to explain how it incurred such a huge loss in one year, the nature\nof the losses and the reason thereof

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

193/- and capital gain of Rs.4,25,82,091/- only. The case of\nthe assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the\nclaim of huge loss.\n4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was\nasked to explain how it incurred such a huge loss in one year, the nature\nof the losses and the reason thereof

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

193/- and capital gain of Rs.4,25,82,091/- only. The case of the\nassessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to verify the\nclaim of huge loss.\n\n4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was\nasked to explain how it incurred such a huge loss in one year, the nature\nof the losses and the reason

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

price or all significant risks and rewards or ownership have been transferred to the buyer and the seller retains no effective control of the goods transferred to a degree usually associated with ownership; and (ii)no significant uncertainty exists regarding the amount of the consideration that will be derived from the sale of the goods." In the instant case