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

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

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. 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

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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has not filed any cross objections (CO) against this appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page 2 of 24 Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page

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

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

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)

250 transferred to AE computed by MRV Krishna & Co. TOTAL 3,487,865,338 3.8 The AO passed a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act on 30.03.2023, determining the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 340,68,58,962 after incorporating the TP adjustments as above and making certain disallowances under section 14A and section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “The Act”) for the assessment year ( in short “AY”) 2019-20. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 2 of 17 3. Before leaping straightway to the penalty proceedings, it is very much pertinent here to discuss with regard

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Transfer Pricing Officer,\nwhere the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed\nunder section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and,\ndisclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and\n(e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.\n(7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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