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

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

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii. The revenue received by the assessee cannot be construed as a simple case of transfer of property under capital gains. In any transfer of property, the transferor and the transferee exercise effective control over the transaction. In the present scenario, the assessee has no control over the sale process (right to choose the transferee) and the cancellation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii. The revenue received by the assessee cannot be construed as a simple case of transfer of property under capital gains. In any transfer of property, the transferor and the transferee exercise effective control over the transaction. In the present scenario, the assessee has no control over the sale process (right to choose the transferee) and the cancellation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii. The revenue received by the assessee cannot be construed as a simple case of transfer of property under capital gains. In any transfer of property, the transferor and the transferee exercise effective control over the transaction. In the present scenario, the assessee has no control over the sale process (right to choose the transferee) and the cancellation

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

56,110 disallowed 14,33,52,693 Less:- Total (A) Rs.76,15,03,417 3. Mark-up on (Rs.76,15,03,417 Rs. 8,20,90,068 Expenditure (B) * 10.78% 4. Reimbursement to be Rs.84,35,93,485 received with mark-up ((A) + (B)) T.P Adjustment Rs.84,35,93,485 IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

56,110 disallowed 14,33,52,693 Less:- Total (A) Rs.76,15,03,417 3. Mark-up on (Rs.76,15,03,417 Rs. 8,20,90,068 Expenditure (B) * 10.78% 4. Reimbursement to be Rs.84,35,93,485 received with mark-up ((A) + (B)) T.P Adjustment Rs.84,35,93,485 IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

56,110 disallowed 14,33,52,693 Less:- Total (A) Rs.76,15,03,417 3. Mark-up on (Rs.76,15,03,417 Rs. 8,20,90,068 Expenditure (B) * 10.78% 4. Reimbursement to be Rs.84,35,93,485 received with mark-up ((A) + (B)) T.P Adjustment Rs.84,35,93,485 IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

56,110 disallowed 14,33,52,693 Less:- Total (A) Rs.76,15,03,417 3. Mark-up on (Rs.76,15,03,417 Rs. 8,20,90,068 Expenditure (B) * 10.78% 4. Reimbursement to be Rs.84,35,93,485 received with mark-up ((A) + (B)) T.P Adjustment Rs.84,35,93,485 IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike