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. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

section 92C, the\narm's length price in relation to an international transaction 22[or a\nspecified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the\nfollowing methods, being the most appropriate method, in the\nfollowing manner, namely:\n(a) - (d) xx\nXX\n(e) Transactional Net Margin Method, by which,-\n(i) the net profit margin realised

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

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 35 (1) (iv) of the Act without any discussion.” Following questions were posed before the Hon’ble High Court in one of the several appeals filed before it and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decided this issue in favour of the assessee taking note of technological obsolescence and also following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer price as the arm’s length price. Then to make IT(TP)A No.281/Bang/2021 Page 32 of 63 a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible. 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the present case, the TPO accepted the international transaction of trading of AE’s product

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

Transfer Pricing (Manufacturing Segment) [Ground I(2)] 6. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had performed some manufacturing activities, rendered technical and support services to the AEs, etc. The assessee in its TP 12 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. study, treated the ALP of the aforesaid international transaction undertaken by the assessee with

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing provisions and judicial precedents, the TP adjustment should be restricted only to AE related transactions of the assessee. The ld. Page 16 of 40 AR has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT–1, Mumbai vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. reported in [2016] 72 taxmann.com 325 ( Bombay

MOHAMMED ABDUL NAJEEB,GULBARGA, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

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

transfer of\njurisdiction from Gulbarga regular\njurisdiction, without complying to the\nmandatory requirements of provisions of\nSection 127 of the Act. In this regard, the\nappellant places reliance on the following\njudicial precedents:\na) SAHARA HOSPITAL LTD\nV/S CIT (2012) 211\nTAXMANN 299 (BOM)\nb) AJANTA INDUSTRIES V/S\nCBDT (1976) 102 ITR 281\n(SC)\nc) MUKUTLA LALITA V/S\nCIT

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

COFFEEDAY TRADING LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

211 crores. It is not possible by any stock brokers to find a customer to sell the shares worth about Rs.3,000 crores in one stroke. Any client who wishes to sell shares worth of Rs.3000 crores will definitely engage an expert in the field to identify the buyer and also negotiate the good price to the clients. The Assessee

SPARKLE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

211/-. Dissatisfied with the reply of the assessee, the AO framed the assessment determining income of assessee amounting to Rs.10,17,22,274/-. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on 08/08/2022. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee vide its order dated 13/03/2024. 4. Meanwhile, the Pr.CIT, Delhi issued notice

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

price was also disturbed. The learned CIT(A), in paragraph No.6.2.4 confirmed applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act and recalculation of cost of acquisition. Thus, the addition of Rs.8,36,25,000/- to the total income of the assessee was confirmed. This issue is under challenge before us. 9. The learned AR has stated that he would

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price of Rs.\n32,97,500/- and got registered in the year 2017 at market value of Rs. 52,74,186/-\nand the stamp valuation and registration fee of Rs. 2,94,000/- was paid. Further\nthe AO has observed that the assessee has not furnished bank account details\nincluding the foreign bank account highlighting the payments relating to purchase

MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM,MATHIKERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DCIT, CC- 2(1), BLR, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason