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

ab- initio; ii. The Assessee submitted that the submissions made have been disregarded and brushed aside without examining the facts; iii. The TPO and DRP have erred in characterizing the transaction as ‘international transaction’; iv. The TPO for the AY 2016-17 has accepted the submissions of the Assessee and has excluded this transaction after giving show-cause notice

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

ab initio. 1.2 In any case, the appellate order passed in the name of deceased assesse, in spite of specific intimation is bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has also erred in confirming the reopening of assessment by learned Assessing Officer. The conditions precedent for issue

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

ab- initio (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). d. The notices issued under section 153A of the Act are materially defective and consequently the entire proceedings pursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). 10. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For the A.Ys

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

ab- initio (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). d. The notices issued under section 153A of the Act are materially defective and consequently the entire proceedings pursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). 10. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For the A.Ys

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

ab- initio (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). d. The notices issued under section 153A of the Act are materially defective and consequently the entire proceedings pursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). 10. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For the A.Ys

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

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

ab-\ninitio (For the A.Ys.2013-14 to 2017-18).\n\nd.\nThe notices issued under section 153A of the Act are\nmaterially defective and consequently the entire proceedings\npursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A. Ys.\n2013-14 to 2017-18).\n\n10.\nThe disallowance of depreciation on goodwill

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

35 of the assessment year 2007-08 is kept on record in assessee’s paper book page nos.36 & 37. He submitted that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the same and not held that the assessment order passed in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm is valid. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

35 of the assessment year 2007-08 is kept on record in assessee’s paper book page nos.36 & 37. He submitted that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the same and not held that the assessment order passed in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm is valid. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

35 of the assessment year 2007-08 is kept on record in assessee’s paper book page nos.36 & 37. He submitted that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the same and not held that the assessment order passed in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm is valid. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

pricing addition of Rs.78.97\ncrores;\n(ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee\nhas assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax\nliabilities;\n(iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved\nunder Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating\ncompany ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

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

2. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO"), Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic analysis performed by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation and adjusting the transfer price of the Appellant by an amount of INR 55,055,083/- under Section 92CA of the Act. 3. The Learned TPO/ Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred

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.

35. It is for the above reason that the BLT has been rejected as a valid method for either determining the existence of international transaction or for the determination of ALP of such transaction. Although, under Section 92B read with Section 92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

pricing addition of Rs.78.97\ncrores;\n(ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee\nhas assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax\nliabilities;\n(iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved\nunder Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating\ncompany ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., (supra

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

transfer pricing (‘TP’) documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence; 6.2. Rejecting the filters selected by the Appellant as captured in the TP documentation and adopting certain addition filters which are not in accordance with the jurisprudence laid down by various appellate forums; 6.3. Application of related party transaction

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 adjustment made of INR 84,04,860 under section 10AA of the Act. Part II - Corporate tax adjustments: 5. Grounds against addition on account of unbilled revenue amounting to INR 81,26,36,474 5.1 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

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

35,00,000/- 18. Accordingly, undisclosed income was determined for A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 as per table given above. 19. Learned DR relied on the Order of AO and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed appeal of the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in quashing Assessment Order passed

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

ab initio and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned AO erred in not quoting a valid computer- generated DIN on the body of draft assessment order dated 20 September 2021, in contravention to the Circular