EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

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

41[ten] per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee claims

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

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

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

1).......\n(5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment.\n(6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in sub-section (5), after considering

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

41,195,410. Consequently, an order under section 92CA (3) of the Income-tax Act was passed. 07. Based on this, the draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the Act was issued on 29 August 2023, incorporating a total transfer pricing

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

sections after application of the ALP, in our view, is the Transfer pricing adjustment contemplated in sec.92 of the Act. 39.21 We have prepared certain illustrations in order to explain above points. They are given below:- There are two situations in which the profits of eligible business are inflated. They are (a) Over invoicing revenue (b) Under invoicing expenses

NIYAZ SEA FOODS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to 'belong' to the Assessee they are not documents on the basis of which jurisdiction can be assumed by the AO under Section 153C

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 (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United

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 (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United

CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

1. The impugned order of the learned AO pursuant to the directions of the Honorable DRP, erred in assessing the total income at INR 460,090,995 as against the returned income of INR 333,324,140 reported by the Appellant. 2. The learned AO/ TPO erred in law and in facts in making an addition

NIYAZ SEA FOODS ,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

41(1) of the Act in respect of impunged amount of Rs.1,94,18,130/-. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed. 5.5 In the result, appeal in ITA No.1018/Bang/2024 is allowed. ITA No.1019/Bang/2024 (AY 2018-19): 6. In this appeal, the assessee raised following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) on the facts

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price at 25.25%. Even though, DRP refused to interfere with the objections of the assessee in its order, we were informed that DRP has directed the TPO/A.O. not to make any negative working capital adjustment in some of the cases in the next assessment year, in the cases of Market Tools Research P. Ltd., and Mega Systems Worldwide India

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

41 of 50 an electronic record is when it enters the computer resource outside the control of originator. Indisputedly, in this case, the ‘originator’ is the DRP. Sub-Section (za) of Section 2 of the I.T.Act defines the word ‘originator’ and reads thus: “Section 2: Definitions (za) ?originator means a person who sends, generates, stores or transmits any electronic message

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

41 R. 544 and Kedar Narain Sinoh vs. CIT (1938) 6 ITR 157 (All) : TC 32R.258 approved; CIT vs. NaQdriuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 71 CTR (AP) 118 : (1988) 171 ITR 663 (AP) : TC 41R.551, CIT vs. Electrochem Orissa Ltd. (1995) 123 CTR (On) 162 : (1995) 211 ITR 552 (Ori) and CIT vs. Maharashtra Electrosmelt