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

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

Section 92C of the Act, provides for computation of arm's length price of an international transaction between the assessee and its A.E. by following one of the methods prescribed therein. Rule 10C, defines most appropriate method to be one which is best suited to the facts and circumstances of each particular transaction and which provides the most reliable measure

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. RADISYS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RADISYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore in keeping with the OECD guidelines, endeavor should be made to bring in comparable companies for the purpose of broad comparison. Therefore the working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 16. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the working capital adjustment

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

transfer price as the arm's length price. Then to make a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible. 10. Similarly, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v CIT [2016] 381 ITR 117 at para 86 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under:- "MSIL's higher operating margins

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

price of shares is being taxed as perquisite in the hands of the employees. 2.5. The Learned AO and Honorable DRP have erred in law and on facts, in disregarding the employee listing, sample debit notes/invoices and sample Form 16 copies submitted during the Assessment/DRP proceedings by the Appellant. 2.6. The Learned AO and Honorable DRP have erred

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

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

43B of the Act. Same view has been taken by Cochin Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Kunnel Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.653/Coch/2019 & 4/Coch/2020 dated 19.5.2020 and by the coordinate bench of Bangalore in the case of Mr. Asrah Nafisa Althaf in ITA No.614/Bang/2023 dated 9.11.2023. In view of this, we dismiss these grounds taken

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

43B(f) of the Act, according to which a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee, shall be allowed irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

Price (Rs.)\n0\n(Zero)\nFirst Party\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nSecond Party\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 2 1 BENGALURU\nStamp Duty Paid By\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\n20\n(Twenty only)\nBEFORE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nBANGALORE BENCH\nThe Karnataka State Co-\noperative Agriculture and Rural\nDevelopment

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

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

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

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

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

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