M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Facts of the case in IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 for the assessment year

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.

Section 92CA of the Act dated 31.10.2017 stated that acquisition of shares pursuant to the SPA, Diageo Pic (the ultimate holding company of Rely BV) acquired controlling stake in USL and, hence, the determination of ALP must be determined based on a valuation of USL as an entity. Therefore, the TPO held that the price of USL 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.

Section 92CA of the Act dated 31.10.2017 stated that acquisition of shares pursuant to the SPA, Diageo Pic (the ultimate holding company of Rely BV) acquired controlling stake in USL and, hence, the determination of ALP must be determined based on a valuation of USL as an entity. Therefore, the TPO held that the price of USL shares

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

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 11.3 Respectfully following the above judgment of coordinate bench of the Tribunal, we allow this ground of the assessee. Ground No.8 12. The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that Rohan Motors Ltd., and Sicagen India Ltd., were considered by the TPO as comparable companies after

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

250 of the Act dated 30.6.2024 passed by the\nld. CIT(A) Bangalore 15 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of\nthe case.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned Appellate order\nconfirming the additions of alleged Business income amounting to\nRs.111,53,50,377/- for the A.Y.2017-18 on the ground of alleged\nexchange

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Price received 8,70,35,80,565/- Shortfall 84,58,60,310/- 9.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that the adjustment made by the TPO of Rs. 84,58,60,310/- in the Software Development Segment has IT(TP)A No.291/Bang/2022 Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 64 been adopted by the AO in the Draft assessment order

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

250 Eshwari Arcade, 14th Main, of Income Tax, 7th Sector, HSR Layout, Circle 2(2)(2), Bangalore South Bangalore. Bangalore - 560102. PAN: AAACW 7745D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri Sumeet Khurana , CA Respondent by : Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

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

transfer. ii. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. iii. A question arises as to whether the tolerance limit is prospective from the date of its introduction or is retrospective? If it is retrospective, it is retrospective since when? iv. Amendment made in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by concluding that the lease rentals, if treated to be as revenue expenses would be liable to Tax Deduction at Source ("TDS") under section 1941 of the Act, without Page 50 of 65 IT(TP)A No.285/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore appreciating the fact that the expense does not warrant

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)

Transfer Pricing Office / TPO") for determination of Arm's Length Price under section 92CA of the Act on 30.03.2022. Several notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act to the Assessee, which have been duly responded to. 3.7 The TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) on 29.01.2023, proposing an adjustment

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 ("TP") documentation maintained by the assessee and upholds undertaking a new search beyond the due date prescribed for maintaining the TP documentation and also Page 2 of 40 rejecting the use of multiple year data by the assessee in its TP documentation. 2. Impugned order erroneously determines TP adjustment in relation to trading segment by attributing notional shortfall

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), , BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

250 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) dated 04.09.2024 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and dated 07.08.2024 for 2013-14. ITA Nos. 2127/Bang/2024 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing software development services and information technology enabled services i.e. ITeS comprising of customer and seller support services, Page 2 ITA Nos. 2127 & 2036/Bang/2024

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

250 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) dated 04.09.2024 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and dated 07.08.2024 for 2013-14. ITA Nos. 2127/Bang/2024 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing software development services and information technology enabled services i.e. ITeS comprising of customer and seller support services, Page 2 ITA Nos. 2127 & 2036/Bang/2024

M/S. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) determining a TP adjustment with respect to manufacturing segment, SWD services segment and payment of royalty totalling to Rs.173,02,90,000/-. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 30.12.2019 came to be passed by the AO in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated, apart from the additions made

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BENGALURU vs. ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the Cross Objection is dismissed as infructuous

250 of the Act dt. 30.08.2024 for AY 2011-12. In the memo\nof appeal, the Revenue has raised as many as 17 grounds of appeal\nchallenging the deletion of the addition made on the Transfer pricing\nadjustment, we for the sake of brevity and convenience, are not inclined\nto reproduce the same here.\n\n2.\nThe issues raised

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.”

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 and 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

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2004-05. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) which inter alia included payment towards technical know-how amounting to Rs.9