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

transfer Finacle Universal Banking Solution Business division and Edge-services Business division for a consideration of 3222 crores and 177 crores respectively which aggregates to Rs. 3399 crores. As per the assessee, the consideration for purchase of the business division was made for bundled of assets comprising in those division without any breakup or division of the price over assets

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

transfer Finacle Universal Banking Solution Business division and Edge-services Business division for a consideration of 3222 crores and 177 crores respectively which aggregates to Rs. 3399 crores. As per the assessee, the consideration for purchase of the business division was made for bundled of assets comprising in those division without any breakup or division of the price over assets

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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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

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

transfer Finacle\nUniversal Banking Solution Business division and Edge-services Business\ndivision for a consideration of 3222 crores and 177 crores respectively\nwhich aggregates to Rs. 3399 crores. As per the assessee, the\nconsideration for purchase of the business division was made for\nbundled of assets comprising in those division without any breakup or\ndivision of the price over assets

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

1).......\n(5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment.\n(6) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue the directions referred to in sub-section (5), after considering

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

transfer, then, for the purposes of the deduction under this section, the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

6 (1) (1), sixth floor, Bengaluru RMZ Ecoworld, second floor, Plot C1, 8A campus, BMTC building, Sarjapur Marathahalli 80 Feet Road, Outer Ring Road sixth block, Deverabeesanhaali Koramangala, Bangalore 560103 Bengaluru 5600 95 PAN AACCS7483E For Appellant Mr. Ali Asgar Rampurwala Mr. Vikram Udupa CA For Respondent DR Divya K J CIT DR Date of Hearing 21 August 2025 Date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

transferred to a new business in that area or in any other backward area and the total value of the machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed twenty per cent of the total value of the machinery or Page 31 of 39 plant used in the business, then, for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

6 of 14 regard to the Arm's length price determined under sub- section (3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer. It has been proposed to amend said sub-section (4) of section 92CA so as to provide that, on receipt of the order under subsection (3) of section 92CA, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income

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.

1. The learned Assessing Officer ('learned AO'), the learned TPO1) Transfer Pricing Officer ('learned and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') have grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 262,27,80,021/ - to the sale of equity share by the Appellant. 2. The learned AO, the learned TPO, and the Hon’ble DRP have erred

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.

1. The learned Assessing Officer ('learned AO'), the learned TPO1) Transfer Pricing Officer ('learned and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') have grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 262,27,80,021/ - to the sale of equity share by the Appellant. 2. The learned AO, the learned TPO, and the Hon’ble DRP have erred

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

1)(iv) as Scientific research expenses shall become academic and we are not adjudicating them”. Accordingly we partly allow the ground No. 4 to 4.4 raised by the assessee. 7. The fifth ground relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO/AO. In the original grounds of appeal that were filed before the Tribunal on 27.07.2021, the five aspects

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

Transfer Pricing Officer,\nwhere the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed\nunder section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and,\ndisclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and\n(e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.\n(7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing analysis, the purpose is not to compare profit of the tested party with that of the comparables but the purpose is to compare the prices charged by the tested, party with the prices charged by the comparables although when TNMM is adopted as MA.M, the process of such price comparison is by comparing profits of tested party with

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

Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the\ndetermination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions. The TPO noted that as per the Transfer Pricing (TP)\ndocuments furnished for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, the\nAssessee had entered into the following International Transactions\nwith its AEs:\nInternational Transactions as per 3CEB\nParticulars\nReceived/\nReceivables

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

section 270A of the Act.\nThe Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is\nindependent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant\ncraves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of\nthe aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time\nof hearing of the appeal, so as to enable