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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

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

prices but same is not paid to customers. However, these are bogus expenses, as assessee is bound by KERC rates. It was noted by him that this is one of the issues on the side of the liability. And there may be many such issues. As assessee failed to provide all the details, the learned that AO presumed that some

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

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

prices but same is not paid to customers. However, these are bogus expenses, as assessee is bound by KERC rates. It was noted by him that this is one of the issues on the side of the liability. And there may be many such issues. As assessee failed to provide all the details, the learned that AO presumed that some

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

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

35 of 50 23rd August 2023. No explanation on behalf of the department is forthcoming. We have to draw adverse inference. 20. Section 144C of the Act is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class of assessees, i.e., ‘eligible assessee’. Section 144C of the Act was inserted in the Finance Act of 2009 and came into effect

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

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,82,695/- . The brief facts of the case are that on the perusal of the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer noted the assessee had made advances to its sister concern and others totaling Rs. 2,31,23,236/- . The learned AR for the assessee was asked to furnish the details

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

IV. Trading sales filter: Companies with trading sales more than 75% of total sales were selected and rest were rejected V. Persistent loss making filter: Companies which have persistently made losses in last three years have been rejected VI. Negative net worth filter: Companies with negative networth were rejected. VII. RPT Filter: Companies with RPT to sales ratio below

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35 The learned AO/TPO has made TP adjustment in respect of Sales Promotion expenses paid to East Bengal Football Team ignoring the submissions and various judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant during the course of Transfer Pricing Proceedings 36 Without prejudice to the above, the learned TPO erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/-3% range prescribed

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

35 of 55 years. The said methodology has been submitted before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The Appellant submits that it creates provision for warranty on a scientific basis. Based on the above, expenses incurred by it towards warranty expense are allowable under section 37 of the Act. Detailed submissions in this regard are placed at pages

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

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

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