M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

7 of 55 8. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. submitted that the reopening was done by the A.O. on account of fresh facts coming to his notice as a result of order passed by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the TPO has held the reimbursement of expenses

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

7 of 55 8. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. submitted that the reopening was done by the A.O. on account of fresh facts coming to his notice as a result of order passed by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the TPO has held the reimbursement of expenses

M/S NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

7 of 55 8. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. submitted that the reopening was done by the A.O. on account of fresh facts coming to his notice as a result of order passed by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the TPO has held the reimbursement of expenses

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

7 of 55 8. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. submitted that the reopening was done by the A.O. on account of fresh facts coming to his notice as a result of order passed by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the TPO has held the reimbursement of expenses

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(2)(b) on which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. However, as per para 166 of Budget speech of Finance Bill, 2017, the transfer pricing provisions were amended to exclude specified domestic transactions which are under section 92BA read with 40(2)(b) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations. 2. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(2)(b) on which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. However, as per para 166 of Budget speech of Finance Bill, 2017, the transfer pricing provisions were amended to exclude specified domestic transactions which are under section 92BA read with 40(2)(b) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations. 2. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the documentary evidences in the form of agreements, email correspondences and other supporting documents which proves the necessity, reasonability and the corresponding tangible benefits accruing from the service received from its AE.” 7.1 Ground No.I

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

Transfer Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

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

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

transfer pricing adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

transfer of goods or services referred to in sub- section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions of sub- section

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Transfer Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

SRI. KRISHNA DIAMONDS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted. When it was pointed out that the coordinate bench has restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the payments in terms of section 40A(2) of the Act, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue may be restored to the file of the A.O. for examining

M/S.FILTREX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

7 and negotiation between the Parties to the Agreement;" 7.2 This shows that even the clause relating to the royalty is vague as the words used are "a lump sum payment of USD 5,00,000/- (Five lakh US Dollars only) manufactured by it during the financial year". The assessee could not explain the above aspect. No two independent parties