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 UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

201 per share paid to RA Group who held only 18.83% share which was not a controlling stake, which is clear from the fact that control premium has been computed by them with respect to the negotiated price. The RA Group in our view is a good internal CUP as both the assessee and RA Group have sold the shares

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

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

201 per share paid to RA Group who held only 18.83% share which was not a controlling stake, which is clear from the fact that control premium has been computed by them with respect to the negotiated price. The RA Group in our view is a good internal CUP as both the assessee and RA Group have sold the shares

CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

section 144C (5) of the Act wherein the total income of Page 2 of 20 the assessee was determined at ₹ 46,00,90,995/– as against the returned income of ₹ 333,324,140/–. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “ That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: General grounds 1. The impugned order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

transfer of skill\nand knowledge which falls within the ambit of technical\nservices. The DRP has also confirmed the view of the A.O.\nThe AO and DRP has erred in not appreciating that what\nshould be made available is technical knowledge,\nexperience, skill etc. Making available service does not\nmake available knowledge, experience, skill etc. MSSPL\nhas to approach

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

201 ITR 181, the Allahabad High Court held that where part of the overdraft diverted to Directors and concerns in which they were substantially interested, interest in such amount to that extent was held disallowable. Similar views were expressed by Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, and Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer of skill and knowledge which falls within the ambit of technical services. The DRP has also confirmed the view of the A.O. The AO and DRP has erred in not appreciating that what should be made available is technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. Making available service does not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc. MSSPL has to approach

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer of skill and knowledge which falls within the ambit of technical services. The DRP has also confirmed the view of the A.O. The AO and DRP has erred in not appreciating that what should be made available is technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. Making available service does not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc. MSSPL has to approach

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer of skill and knowledge which falls within the ambit of technical services. The DRP has also confirmed the view of the A.O. The AO and DRP has erred in not appreciating that what should be made available is technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. Making available service does not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc. MSSPL has to approach

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

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

1: Transfer pricing issues: 3.1 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the transfer pricing additions for the assessment years under consideration do not survive on account of Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) dated 04.12.2019 entered into between the assessee and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), which covers all the transfer pricing issues involved in the present appeals. It is submitted

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

201(1A) of the Act in case of GIPL (Payer) notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2014. The assessee filed Nil return of income on 14.08.2014 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and sought for the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment under Section