ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (iii) "public financial institution" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

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

vi) The ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. Vs. CIT (16 taxmann.com 335) (Delhi). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee had advanced money to the promoters of AIPL for the purchase of their shareholding in the said

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act as retrospectively amended by Finance Act, 2012 are only clarificatory in nature. The Hon'ble DRP held that consideration paid for use or right to use of process was already chargeable to tax as royalty. Further, the argument of the assessee that the assessee being a resident of Belgium is covered

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

vi) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA; and (iii) an undertaking referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IB; (h) “long-term finance” means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for ITA Nos.673, 674 & 684/B/14 9 repayment along with interest thereof during a period of not less

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

vi) Unrealised gain on revaluation of forward Rs.77,91,16,260 contracts. vii) Disallowance of depreciation on leased Rs.1,67,500 assets. viii) Disallowance u/s.14A Rs.24,91,38,500 ix) Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) – payment Rs.8,05,15,590 made to NPCI x) Amortisation of Premium in respect of Rs.88,31,63,478 HTM category of investments. xi) Profit

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

vi) Consideration should not be less than less than 50 lakh rupees. 8 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. 3.11 The learned AR submitted that on the basis of the reasons that follow that the conclusion of the A.O. that the refundable security deposit constitutes consideration for transfer of immovable property is incorrect. The refundable deposit does not constitute consideration for transfer

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

36 Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax — b) Transfer Pricing Officer —VI under section 92CA of the Act dated 30 January 2014 Having regard to the provisions of section 153(1

SAN DISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

36 Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax — b) Transfer Pricing Officer —VI under section 92CA of the Act dated 30 January 2014 Having regard to the provisions of section 153(1

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

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing. In holding so, the learned DRP referred various case laws. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned DRP/AO/TPO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us argued that the TPO erred in benchmarking the outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and proposing an adjustment

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133(6) to call for information from comparable companies and make suitable adjustment on account of capacity utilisation differences. • TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. IT(TP)A 693/ Bang/2017 dated 25 / 11 / 2021- relevant para 11 & 12 at page 3156-3166 of case law compendium. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

36. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. The issues that needs to be considered for purpose of this ground are two: (1) Whether Ld.TPO erred in not considering the additions of voluntary adjustment for computing proposed adjustments. (2) Whether Ld.AO erred in ignoring the additional voluntary income for purpose of computing

MFX INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

36,66,083 (Interest on delayed receivables); (b) not appreciating that there is no amendment to the definition of "income" and charging or computation provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X and therefore addition made under Chapter

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

vi) ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 92CA(2A) which provides for TPO to consider any other international transaction for adjustment, which has not been referred to him also was introduced w.e.f 01.06.2011 which confirms the fact that prior to 01.06.2011 the TPO could not have' exercised such power. vii) ignoring the fact that not charging interest

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

vi. All these cases laws / judgements have been considered carefully and this Appellate authority is in the view that the case laws mentioned by the Assessing Officer in its Penalty Order are found to be correct and has relevance with the case findings in case of the appellant assessee. vii. Thus, it is seen that, the AO has made