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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

transfer pricing adjustment made on scientific basis in the computation of income in respect of Gurqaon SEZ unit as same was not hit by proviso to section 92C(4) of the Act. 22. The ITAT Bangalore in case of IBM India Pvt Ltd (59 CCH 260

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

transfer pricing adjustment made on scientific basis in the computation of income in respect of Gurqaon SEZ unit as same was not hit by proviso to section 92C(4) of the Act. 22. The ITAT Bangalore in case of IBM India Pvt Ltd (59 CCH 260

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

260 ITR 491 and decision of Hon'ble\n\nITA No.1926/Bang/2024\n& 299/Bang/2025\nPage 4 of 20\n\nKarnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. DR. T.K. Dayalu reported in\n(2011) 14 taxmann.com 120.\n10.\nIn view of the above, the AO estimated the cost of construction at\nRs.1000 per sq. ft. and accordingly computed the deemed

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 of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing and answering such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

260 ITR 491 and decision of Hon'ble\n\nITA No.1926/Bang/2024\n& 299/Bang/2025\n\nPage 4 of 20\n\nKarnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. DR. T.K. Dayalu reported in\n(2011) 14 taxmann.com 120.\n\n10. In view of the above, the AO estimated the cost of construction at\nRs.1000 per sq. ft. and accordingly computed

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR) – “5.2.1 Functional Analysis-Software Development Services Page 6 ITA Nos. 2127 & 2036/Bang/2024 ADC India has entered into agreements with Amazon Group Companies for provision of software development services primarily in the following areas: a) Web Services ADC India assists with enhancing Amazon web services, which include the Amazon Group's offering of product data

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR) – “5.2.1 Functional Analysis-Software Development Services Page 6 ITA Nos. 2127 & 2036/Bang/2024 ADC India has entered into agreements with Amazon Group Companies for provision of software development services primarily in the following areas: a) Web Services ADC India assists with enhancing Amazon web services, which include the Amazon Group's offering of product data

NETRADYNE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment under Section 92CA of the Act amounting to INR 34,530,350 in respect of the software development services segment and INR 1,900,747 for the distribution segment. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities have erred in computing the adjustment in the final assessment order at INR 3,64,31,097 as against

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

MAVENIR SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 453/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mavenir Systems Pvt. Ltd., Building Beach E1 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Manyata Embassy Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Hebbal Kr Circle – 4 (1)(1), Puram Section, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaecm9663N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.04.2022 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.Ar Has Relied On The Specific Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Which Are As Under:

transfer pricing order, we note that the Ld.TPO has not categorised assessee to be a product company. We refer to page 44 of the TP order wherein the TPO himself prays the distinction between a software product company and a software service company and has concluded by observing that a product company should have off the shelf products which

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 61 initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 260-A of the Act was not maintainable. Thus, it is clear that the Hont>le High Court has also not ruled against the separate benchmarking of royalty. As noted by the TPO, in the following year i.e. A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal had held that royalty is to be benchmarked separately. Further, in the case of M/s. Toyota

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. The AO has also stated that there was valid search conducted under section 132(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act. The AO has not followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain (supra). Therefore, Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is illegal. The learned

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. The AO has also stated that there was valid search conducted under section 132(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act. The AO has not followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain (supra). Therefore, Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is illegal. The learned

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. The AO has also stated that there was valid search conducted under section 132(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act. The AO has not followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain (supra). Therefore, Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is illegal. The learned

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

260 ITR\n371 (Bom.) wherein it was held as under -\n\n8.\nHowever, we find that the Department just looks at\nthe nomenclature of the receipt and if it finds that\nthe nomenclature is rent, interest, commission then without any\nfurther inquiry into the nature of business, the Department\ninvokes Explanation (baa) which is not the purpose and the object

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price, enter into agreements with third parties, execute sale deeds, hand over possession, receive consideration, admit execution before registering authorities and generally do all acts which the owners themselves could do. The power given was irrevocable in nature. 5.3 Further, the AO noted that substantial advance amounts were paid at the time of execution of agreement. The agreement also clearly

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price, enter into agreements with third parties, execute sale deeds, hand over possession, receive consideration, admit execution before registering authorities and generally do all acts which the owners themselves could do. The power given was irrevocable in nature. 5.3 Further, the AO noted that substantial advance amounts were paid at the time of execution of agreement. The agreement also clearly