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

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

43(1) and determine the actual cost of\nacquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing\nOfficer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely\nrejected the valuation without conducting a detailed examination of the\nBTA and valuation report.\n25.12 At the same time, the learned CIT(A) also noted that the\nvaluation report relied heavily on management inputs

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

43(1) and determine the actual cost of acquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing Officer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely rejected the valuation without conducting a detailed examination of the BTA and valuation report. 25.12 At the same time, the learned CIT(A) also noted that the valuation report relied heavily on management inputs

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

43(1) and determine the actual cost of acquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing Officer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely rejected the valuation without conducting a detailed examination of the BTA and valuation report. 25.12 At the same time, the learned CIT(A) also noted that the valuation report relied heavily on management inputs

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

43(1) and determine the actual cost of acquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing Officer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely rejected the valuation without conducting a detailed examination of the BTA and valuation report. 25.12 At the same time, the learned CIT(A) also noted that the valuation report relied heavily on management inputs

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

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. If the conditions of the first proviso to section 12B(2) are not satisfied the main part of section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax Officer must take into account the full value

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 an estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bona fide cases of small variations between

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

43(1) and determine the actual cost of\nacquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing\nOfficer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely\nrejected the valuation without conducting a detailed examination of the\nBTA and valuation report.\n25.12\nAt the same time, the learned CIT(A) also noted that the\nvaluation report relied heavily on management inputs

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. 6. It is not in dispute that the Assessee is an eligible Assessee and therefore the Assessment in the case of the Assessee is to be completed keeping in mind the statutory provisions of Sec.143(3), 144C and Sec.153

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

1 to 3 of the appeal are general in nature and therefore, the same do not require any specific adjudication. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. IT(TP)A No.1539/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 37 3. The issue in Ground No. 29 relates to the levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. Since the levy

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)

transfer pricing, the assessee had considered the segmental financials relating to transactions with its AE. The TPO rejected the segmental financials of the assessee and worked out the entity level margins of the assessee while arriving at the TP adjustment. The TPO rejected the segmental financials on the by stating that “The taxpayer has contested the above margin computation

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

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

section 92CA of the Act on 18.02.2013 and therefore the contention that the reference was made after 2 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and therefore the Order of Assessment is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. Consequently, ground 1.2 raised by the assess is dismissed. 28. We shall now deal with the transfer pricing adjustment dispute

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

section 92CA of the Act on 18.02.2013 and therefore the contention that the reference was made after 2 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and therefore the Order of Assessment is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. Consequently, ground 1.2 raised by the assess is dismissed. 28. We shall now deal with the transfer pricing adjustment dispute

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing