DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer of skill and knowledge which falls within the ambit of technical services. The DRP has also confirmed the view of the A.O. The AO and DRP has erred in not appreciating that what should be made available is technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. Making available service does not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc. MSSPL has to approach

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer of skill and knowledge which falls within the ambit of technical services. The DRP has also confirmed the view of the A.O. The AO and DRP has erred in not appreciating that what should be made available is technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. Making available service does not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc. MSSPL has to approach

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

1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. 31. General background of Section 50C a) Generally, in a transaction of transfer of land or building or both (‘asset”) there is a considerable time gap between the date

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

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

vii) above, this Appellate\nauthority is in the view that, the penalty levied by the AO is correct and this Appellate authority\nthus uphold's the Penalty levied by the Ld. AO at Rs. 2,59, 124/- (being 50% of Rs. 5,18,248/-).\nADDITION NO.-II: Disallowance of Education cess:\ni.\nThe appellant assessee in its submissions has stated

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

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. 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

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

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

vii) Now coming to section 10AA, relevant extract of this section, as applicable to A.Y. 2013-14 (assessment year involved in assessee's case), is reproduced here under: "10AA. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in computing the total income of an assessee, being an entrepreneur as referred to in clause(j) of section 2 of the Special

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

vii) Now coming to section 10AA, relevant extract of this section, as applicable to A.Y. 2013-14 (assessment year involved in assessee's case), is reproduced here under: "10AA. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in computing the total income of an assessee, being an entrepreneur as referred to in clause(j) of section 2 of the Special

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC.,,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

price forecasts, developing cash flow projections and presentation and reporting of the results of the analysis) cannot be regarded as “FTS” as defined in Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA, since no element of “technology” is contained in the said “consultancy” services. 9.29 The Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of ABB Inc. v. Deputy Director of Income

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC., ,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

price forecasts, developing cash flow projections and presentation and reporting of the results of the analysis) cannot be regarded as “FTS” as defined in Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA, since no element of “technology” is contained in the said “consultancy” services. 9.29 The Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of ABB Inc. v. Deputy Director of Income

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation