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

24,67,710\nInclusion of reimbursement of operating\nexpenses and travel costs in the cost base for\ncomputing the arm's length price (inclusive of\n27.43% mark-up).\n7,09,05,886\nConsidering the outstanding receivables from\nInMobi SG as a financing transaction that\nrequires an arm's length interest charge\n14,72,86,347\nTOTAL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SRI LINGARAJU GOWDARA MALLIKARJUNAPPA, CHITRADURGA

24,000/-. The land which has been transferred is of 4,055/- sq.mtrs\nand the fair market of the land which has been transferred amounting to\nRs.20,15,33,500/- as against Rs.12,09,190/- which has been determined by\nthe valuer in the valuation report. Accordingly, there is under valuation to\nthe extent of Rs.8

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

X in the absence of accrual of real income. 7. Valuation of IP - Adjustment amounting to INR 3,42,78,18,865 7.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP/Learned AO/Learned TPO erred in making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of INR 3,42,78,18,865 on international transaction of transfer

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

24. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions. We find that in the AY 2016-17 the assessee had addressed a letter dated 27.9.2019 to the TPO submitting that FIFOTL is not an AE, in response to TPO’s query dated 25.9.2019. Following was the submission made by the assessee in this regard:- “FORCE INDIA

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

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 Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. .............. (a) Whether on facts and the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was justified in law in restricting the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs.)? 3. ........... ……….. (e) We find that in terms of Chapter X of the Act, redetermination of the consideration is to be done only with regard

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

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

24 March 2022. It was found that assessee has stated that Indian Medical Council [IMC] regulations would not be applicable to the pharma company like the assessee and therefore the above stated expenditure are allowable u/s. 37 (1) of the Act and are not hit by the Explanation to the same. The ld. AO was of the view that

KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

24 of 38 b) Jainex Aamcol Ltd.(Jainix): 8.4 The ld. A.R. submitted that the company came to be rejected by the TPO for the reason that the same fails the persistent loss filter. The DRP upheld the action of the TPO for the reason that the Company is making loss for 2 out of 3 years. At the outset

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with Google

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

24 of 47 6. The learned AO completed the assessment proceedings vide orders dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The only disputed addition is the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 7. The appellant

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

24 of 47 6. The learned AO completed the assessment proceedings vide orders dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The only disputed addition is the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 7. The appellant