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 pricing (“TP”) adjustment of INR 4,27,47,621 to the returned income of the Appellant and in holding that the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (“AEs”) in the manufacturing segment were not at arm’s length. Rejection of Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method adopted as the most appropriate method by the Appellant

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter of inference. There has to be some tangible evidence on record to show that two parties have “acted in concert”. 36. The expression "acted in concert" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. v. Jayaram

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 37 of the I T Act. 17.'The Learned AO/DRP erred in disallowing the written off receivables and advances of Rs. 1,63,36,390/- without objectively considering the explanation offered by the assessee. 18. The Learned AO / DRP erred in disallowing the following proyisions for expenses amounting to Rs. 41,76,13,362/- on an entirely unsustainable reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. MSOURCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

sections": ["143(1)", "254", "617/Bang/2016"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) acted within its jurisdiction in setting aside the issue for transfer pricing

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

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

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

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

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 55 “The grounds of appeal are as under:- The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another: 1. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle — 2(1)(1), Bangalore

HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustments in respect of the US transactions pursuant to MAP resolution dated 16.10.2020. The Ld.AR also submitted that the MAP resolution is passed in respect of the US transaction between assessee and the AE that took place during the calendar period for A.Ys. 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 5. It is the submission

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE INDIA EXPORT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

transfer pricing study while determining the ALP. 4. The assessee, in the application for admission of additional grounds, argued that the issues raised are arising from the appellate order (learned DRP) and for the adjudication of the same, there is no requirement for any fresh examination of facts. The issue raised in the additional grounds are fundamental to the resolution

GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

transfer pricing study while determining the ALP. 4. The assessee, in the application for admission of additional grounds, argued that the issues raised are arising from the appellate order (learned DRP) and for the adjudication of the same, there is no requirement for any fresh examination of facts. The issue raised in the additional grounds are fundamental to the resolution

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

transfer pricing, a vital factor in determining the arm's length pricing of assessee's international transactions. We have also noted that the assessee had specifically taken up the issue of appreciation of this unique 50:50 business model before the DRP in the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. As regards the assessment year

M/S ALPHA ELSEC DEFENCE & AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.8.89,42,012/- from Rs.12,57,52,333/- proposed in the draft assessment order. 3. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30.12.2014, both Revenue and assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 27.11.2015 in IT(TP)A No. 249/Bang/2015 and IT(TP)A No. 175/Bang/2015 held that TNMM

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

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

Transfer Pricing adjustments. 4. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2021. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs.91,34,83,890/- (declared in the original return of income). Thereafter, assessee asked for the reasons recorded for the issue

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

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. 5.1 From the above

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

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. 5.1 From the above

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

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. 5.1 From the above

EMBASSY ONE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2009-10 dated 27.12.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “GENERAL GROUND 1.1. The lower authorities have erred in finalizing an order of assessment which suffers from legal defects such as being contrary to the provisions of the Act, barred by limitation

M/S NTT DATA GLOBL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(Tp)A No.2842/Bang/2017 Assessment Year :2005-06

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) vide Order dated 30.11.2016 passed under section 254 r.w.s. 92CA of the Act. 2. At the outset