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

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

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

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

43,25,322 Commission and Director remuneration paid to Mr. 70,41,443 Vijay Mallya Payments to UBHL 15,20,63,311 Reimbursement of expat salary 3,62,34,473 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital media expenses 17,95,97,760 Disallowance of TV advertisement

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

43,25,322 Commission and Director remuneration paid to Mr. 70,41,443 Vijay Mallya Payments to UBHL 15,20,63,311 Reimbursement of expat salary 3,62,34,473 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2,54,85,000 Depreciation on goodwill 88,72,487 Disallowance of digital media expenses 17,95,97,760 Disallowance of TV advertisement

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

43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) and the completion of any action, as referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to passing of any order—\n(α)........\n(b) for assessment or reassessment under the Income-tax Act, and the time limit for completion

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

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

43. Bhagwati, J. who was party to the earlier decision in the Cloth Traders' case 5. delivered a judgment in the Distributors( Baroda) case holding that the Cloth traders' case was obviously incorrectly decided because the words "any income" cannot possibly refer to gross total income but referred only to "net income". Further, Distributors (Baroda) case followed the judgment

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

43,76,771 equity shares of USL to Relay BV at Rs.1,440 per share. The share transfer was completed on 04.07.2013 (i.e. during the relevant assessment year 2014-15) after necessary approvals were obtained. 7. The TPO in his order under Section 92CA of the Act dated 31.10.2017 stated that acquisition of shares pursuant to the SPA, Diageo

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

43,76,771 equity shares of USL to Relay BV at Rs.1,440 per share. The share transfer was completed on 04.07.2013 (i.e. during the relevant assessment year 2014-15) after necessary approvals were obtained. 7. The TPO in his order under Section 92CA of the Act dated 31.10.2017 stated that acquisition of shares pursuant to the SPA, Diageo

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

43. 5. Bhagwati, J. who was party to the earlier decision in the Cloth Traders' case delivered a judgment in the Distributors( Baroda) case holding that the Cloth traders' Page 25 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore case was obviously incorrectly decided because the words "any income" cannot possibly refer to gross total income but referred

DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE , KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated\nabove

43,47,030 in respect of non-utilization of brought forward\nlosses.\nTransfer Pricing (“TP”) Grounds:\nRejection of transfer pricing documentation maintained with\nrespect to trading segment, payment of intra group services\nand trade receivables\n3.\nThe Ld. AO /TPO /DRP erred in not accepting the transfer pricing\nanalysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provision

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 (“TP) order dated 17.10.2018 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 70 S No Particulars Amount (Rs) A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Brad promotion expenses paid to Force India

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

43) is subject to unless the context otherwise\nrequires, in that view of the mater, the words any tax in section 40(a) (ii) includes Cess.\nThus it is a settled position that Cess being in tax, is not an allowable deduction u/s.\n40(a)(ii) of the I.T. Act. This amendment to the section has been made only after

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

section 92C, the\narm's length price in relation to an international transaction 22[or a\nspecified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the\nfollowing methods, being the most appropriate method, in the\nfollowing manner, namely:\n(a) - (d) xx\nXX\n(e) Transactional Net Margin Method, by which,-\n(i) the net profit margin realised

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

43 of 50 (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 153 or Section 153-B, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,— (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel