AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis after determining the profit of the tested party or comparable, profit percentage is worked out by dividing such profit of the tested party/comparable by its turnover. If the provision for doubtful debts is reduced from profit, the numerator IT(TP)A Nos. 238/Bang/2021 & 262/Bang/2022 Page 38 of 133 is reduced but the denominator is not reduced because

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis after determining the profit of the tested party or comparable, profit percentage is worked out by dividing such profit of the tested party/comparable by its turnover. If the provision for doubtful debts is reduced from profit, the numerator IT(TP)A Nos. 238/Bang/2021 & 262/Bang/2022 Page 38 of 133 is reduced but the denominator is not reduced because

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price at 25.25%. Even though, DRP refused to interfere with the objections of the assessee in its order, we were informed that DRP has directed the TPO/A.O. not to make any negative working capital adjustment in some of the cases in the next assessment year, in the cases of Market Tools Research P. Ltd., and Mega Systems Worldwide India

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC,USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 270A, 271A, 271AA and 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The penalty proceedings are premature at this stage; therefore, these are dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 2 and 4 of the appeal is that the ld. AO/ Ld. DRP erred in treating M/s SanDisk India as a Dependent Agency Permanent

SMT. MALAPUR MOUNIKA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Malapur Mounika, Vs. Ito, Prop : M/S. Kaligal Poultry Services, Ward – 1, M H Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga – 577 501. Pan : Bhypm 5247 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

price ultimately credited to profit 8: loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Page 16 of 18 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that

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. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

price ultimately\ncredited to profit 8: loss account) and on the other hand\namounts received from above parties has also been added u/s\n68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad\n(1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

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

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

price fixed by KERC. Assessee was oblivious to the technical expertise which the KPTCL may possess. There was neither transfer of any technology nor any service attributable to a technical service offered by the KPTCL and accepted by the assessee. Therefore, application of Section 194J of the Act to the facts of this case by the Revenue is misconceived. (Para

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

transferred in Hassan, the profit from the same is to be assessed under the head LTCG or short term capital gain. The CIT(A) held reversing the AO’s finding that the same should be assessed as LTCG. Consequently appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed the present

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

194(1) of the Act for the payment of rent Rs. 2,52,000/- and 30% thereof amounting to Rs. 75,600/- c. Disallowance of the salary expenses to the extent of 30% of Rs. 1,09,40,705/- amounting to Rs. 32,82,212/- for not substantiating the genuineness/applicability of provisions of TDS. d. Vehicle maintenance: The Assessing Officer