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

SANYO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1195/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Sanyo India Private Limited, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.45, 2Nd Floor, Jublee Building, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Museum Road, Bangalore-560 025 Pan Aajcs 0730M Appellant Respondent.

transfer pricing provisions. 9. Without prejudice to the Ground 8 above, the learned TPO erred in law and on facts by considering the selling expenses as part of advertising and publicity expenses and considering the same for computation of the adjustment. 10. Without prejudice to the Ground 8 above, the learned TPO erred in law and on facts by overlooking

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.”

price is fixed on the quantum and quality of the lignite mined by the Assessee and therefore the assessee is responsible for the quality of the lignite mined and hence it is not a mere contract for excavation but a mine development contract.  The Revenue is not in the capacity to dictate terms of the agreement entered into between

BIOCON LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Pricing Adjustment of Rs.20,32,95,392 in respect of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Assessing Officer passed a draft order of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dt.30.3.2013 making various additions / disallowances. The assessee filed its objections thereto before the Dispute Resolution Panel

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO determined the TP adjustment of Rs. 3,18,09,842/-. This adjustment has been proposed on advances given to its subsidiary and according to the TPO, since the loans are advanced from India Bond rate of ‘BB rating’ should be considered as against the 6% PA received by assessee. He adopted a rate

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

price contract for 4 years beginning on 01-04-2003 (relevant to AY: 2004-05) 719((TP)A2011 & ITA No.1211(B)/15 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that it can be seen in para-9 to 9.1 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has raised an issue before