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

transfer pricing analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

251,796,576 Nuance Inc. owns the intangible property rights in the products sold to customers. Thus, NTS India has no ownership right, legal or economic, on any intangible generated or on the outcome of any intangible generated or arising during the course of rendering of medical transcription services. Risk Analysis This section provides a discussion of the risks that

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") [Ground Nos. 13 to 17]. We had also submitted that Ground Nos. 18 to 20 are consequential and further that additional Ground No. 21 relating to applicable rate of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") will have to covered by decision of Special Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Total Oil India

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 | [D] | 54,28,86,124\n14,60,95,303\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings

AB INBEV GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm’s Length Price with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned TPO, after determining the ALP suggested for an adjustment under ITeS segment for Rs.41,28,11,497/- and interest on receivables for Rs.84,04,860/-. Accordingly, the total adjustment suggested by the TPO after adjustment under

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

price. The facts of the instant case are identical with the facts of the case in CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 (SC) . 21. In CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674/[1982] 11 Taxman 163 (A.P.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

price. The facts of the instant case are identical with the facts of the case in CIT v. Bankey Lal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 (SC) . 21. In CIT v. L. Raghu Kumar [1983] 141 ITR 674/[1982] 11 Taxman 163 (A.P.), a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court

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

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

251(1)(a)\nof the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of\nappeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the\ncase to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be\nexercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

251(1)(a)\nof the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of\nappeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the\ncase to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be\nexercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

LOWES SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

Transfer pricing issue of interest on overdue receivable remained with upward TP adjustment of Rs.1,98,60,669, deduction claimed u/s. 80G of Rs.76,48,794 and disallowance u/s. 36(1) (va) of Rs.132,825. 11. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature. No arguments were advanced and therefore the same are dismissed. 12. Ground No.3 is adjustment on account

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

251(1)(a) of IT Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.69,11,858/-: 3.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to delete the disallowance wrongly made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.69,11,858/- on the payments made to contractors without

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional