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

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

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

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

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Transfer Pricing Related 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not allowing deduction under section 8oJJAA of the Act amounting to INR 13,07,42,470/-. (corresponding to revised ground no. 7 & original ground no. 7) 8. On the facts

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Transfer Pricing Related 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not allowing deduction under section 8oJJAA of the Act amounting to INR 13,07,42,470/-. (corresponding to revised ground no. 7 & original ground no. 7) 8. On the facts

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

41. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Bombay High Court were examining the scope and import of section 2(47)(v) which was introduced with effect from 1-4-1988. This provision, which covers one of the modes of deemed 'transfer', lays down that the scope of expression 'transfer' includes 'any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable

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

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

transfer price once developed.” Furthermore, the Company is leading provider of Bluetooth Intellectual Property solutions (He referred page 1915 of Annual Report Compendium, expert thinking para) and is also providing digital video surveillance solutions based on the technology developed and for which company has filed patent application (He referred page 1871 & 1872 which is the Annual Report Compendium

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

1 : 37. Admittedly, assessee included voluntary addition of Rs.1,20,30,165/- for computing ALP of the transaction. Under section 92C of the Act, when assessee enters into an international transaction with its associated enterprise, the arms length price of the transaction is to be computed as per section 92C by the Ld.TPO, in the hands of assessee. In other

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)

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) to (d)…….. (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction

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

transfer pricing IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 36 study in which the assessee chose TNMM as the MAM for determining ALP choosing the PLI as the OP/TC. The OP/TC of the assessee was computed as follows: Operating Income Rs.1,65,32,416/- Operating Expenses Rs.1,50,34,474/- Operating Profit (Op. Income — Op. Expenses) Rs.14

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

transfer pricing IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 36 study in which the assessee chose TNMM as the MAM for determining ALP choosing the PLI as the OP/TC. The OP/TC of the assessee was computed as follows: Operating Income Rs.1,65,32,416/- Operating Expenses Rs.1,50,34,474/- Operating Profit (Op. Income — Op. Expenses) Rs.14

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