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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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)

234D of the Act and the Appellant denies its liability to pay such interest. (Tax Effect: INR 74,420) 18. Penalty Proceedings 18.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the Appellant craves leave

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

234D of the Act. 3.2 Assessee received letter of intent on 31.12.2008 for its appointment as "Mine Operator" from Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd (in short “BLMCL”) which is a Govt. of Rajasthan Undertaking. This arrangement was formalized by way of agreement dated 28.12.2010. Assessee neither owned the mines nor did assessee own the mineral that was excavated. Assessee

M/S. METRICSTREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant; ii) Adopting inappropriate filters like one sided turnover filter, 25% RPT filter, etc, in the process of selecting comparables and not adopting appropriate filters like onsite revenue filter etc; iii) Incorrectly computing the operating margins of comparables; and iv) Adopting following companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in respect

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Assistant No. 4, Batavia Commissioner Chambers, Of Income Tax, Kumara Park Road, Central Circle – Kumara Park East, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr8642N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Surya Tejas, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

234D of the Act. For these and such other grounds that 16. may be urged at the time of hearing the General Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. TOTAL TAX EFFECT Rs. 18,29,25,281/- Page 4 of 15 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is delay of 2 days in filing the present