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

price is fixed between the parties at the time of entering into an agreement to sell. Thereafter, the buyer investigates the title of the vendor, payment is made and the document of transfer, generally, a conveyance is executed and registered in favour of the buyer. b) Based on the language of section 50C, prior to its amendment

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Transfer Pricing Officer' was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Under this provision, the onus of computing ALP of the international transactions in certain cases was shifted to the TPO, who was supposed to pass his order under sub-section (3). There was no separate time limit for passing of the order

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

transferred to a new business in that area or in any other backward area and the total value of the machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed twenty per cent of the total value of the machinery or Page 31 of 39 plant used in the business, then, for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

transfer, then, for the purposes of the deduction under this section, the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

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

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

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

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

35,14,75,152/-\nTNMM\nProvision of back\noffice support\nservices\n76,83,27,134/-\nTNMM\nPurchase of\nhardware\n4,88,75,867/-\nTNMM\nTrade receivables\n2,30,17,61,298/-\n87,46,867/-\nTNMM\nTrade payables\n2,80,381/-\n10,21,54,554/- TNMM\nUnbilled Revenue\n11,19,14,715/-\nTNMM\nAdvances from\ncustomers closely\nlinked to software\ndevelopment

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price at 25.25%. Even though, DRP refused to interfere with the objections of the assessee in its order, we were informed that DRP has directed the TPO/A.O. not to make any negative working capital adjustment in some of the cases in the next assessment year, in the cases of Market Tools Research P. Ltd., and Mega Systems Worldwide India

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

iii)……. (xxviii) the National e-Assessment Centre shall, - (a) upon receipt of acceptance as per clause (xxvii); or (b) if no objections are received from the eligible assessee within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 144C of the Act, finalise the assessment within the time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 144C

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.”

transfer price of lignite. Thus, the expenditure incurred in respect of a mine owned by third party does not create or bring into existence any asset of enduring benefit to the Assessee Company and hence the expenditure on overburden removal cannot be termed as capital expenditure. The said expenditure incurred has not led to the creation of any capital asset

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

section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld AO erred in not allowing set off of current year losses and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 4,98,73,540 and Rs. 4,59,11,799 aggregating to Rs. 9,57,85,339 Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35, 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 20,22,23 14, 21, 27 33A: ADD GROUND Royalty/FTS 7-12, 15- 23-26, 28- 17, 18, 19, 5. 22-23 20-21 21-22 40(a)(i) 18, 32-33 31, 39, 40 21 36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35, 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 20,22,23 14, 21, 27 33A: ADD GROUND Royalty/FTS 7-12, 15- 23-26, 28- 17, 18, 19, 5. 22-23 20-21 21-22 40(a)(i) 18, 32-33 31, 39, 40 21 36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35, 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 20,22,23 14, 21, 27 33A: ADD GROUND Royalty/FTS 7-12, 15- 23-26, 28- 17, 18, 19, 5. 22-23 20-21 21-22 40(a)(i) 18, 32-33 31, 39, 40 21 36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35, 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 20,22,23 14, 21, 27 33A: ADD GROUND Royalty/FTS 7-12, 15- 23-26, 28- 17, 18, 19, 5. 22-23 20-21 21-22 40(a)(i) 18, 32-33 31, 39, 40 21 36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35, 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 20,22,23 14, 21, 27 33A: ADD GROUND Royalty/FTS 7-12, 15- 23-26, 28- 17, 18, 19, 5. 22-23 20-21 21-22 40(a)(i) 18, 32-33 31, 39, 40 21 36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35, 4. DAPE – 40(a)(i) 18-21 16-19 17-20 20,22,23 14, 21, 27 33A: ADD GROUND Royalty/FTS 7-12, 15- 23-26, 28- 17, 18, 19, 5. 22-23 20-21 21-22 40(a)(i) 18, 32-33 31, 39, 40 21 36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution