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

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 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 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. THE 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 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

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

vii) In view of the detailed evidence FILED ON 20.10.2023 IN CONSOLIDATION OF 4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS and explained above, whereby it is clearly established that the AO passed order much ahead of the due date as prescribed under section 144C(13) of the I.T.Act,1961, the ADDITIONAL GOA FILED BY APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 07.06.2022 THAT FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER

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 analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

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 analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the\nExplanation to section 92CA.]\n[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of\ntwo years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought\nto be revised was passed.]\n(3) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section

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 Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the Explanation to section 92CA.] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (2

ADARSHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT SIRSI,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer\"\nshall have the same meaning as assigned to in the Explanation to section\n92CA.]\n[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two\nyears from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be\nrevised was passed.]\n(3) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the Explanation to section 92CA.] M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi Page 15 of 31 [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the Explanation to section 92CA.] M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi Page 15 of 31 [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the present case the TPO had proposed an adjustment of Rs.31,26,65,872/on account of arm's length price vide its order dated 21 .10.2016, out of which the adjustment of Rs.25,23,76,5211- was made in the trading segment, and the adjustment of Rs.6

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

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) or the one contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 43CA of the Act, the Tribunal has in the following cases held that in a case where the date of agreement for transfer is different from the date of transfer, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the Explanation to section 92CA.] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (2