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

1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

transfer. ii. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. iii. A question arises as to whether the tolerance limit is prospective from the date of its introduction or is retrospective? If it is retrospective, it is retrospective since when? iv. Amendment made in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third

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

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

priced to MSI\non par with MSSPL's Training offered to other Channel\nPartners.\n(d) Assist in ARC Product and Associated Services sales.\nbusiness, technical and commercial discussions, product\ndemonstrations and services portfolio presentations to the\nprospect.\n(e) Deploy, maintain, customize and support the product\nand services with clients\n(f) Carry Commercial and contractual ownership

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

9 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n6.2 The Ld.Sr.Counsel referred to section 3 of TOLA 2020 and submitted that, since passing the draft assessment order u/s. 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4) of the act was due on 31.12.2020 that fell between the COVID period (20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020), TOLA 2020 relaxed the time limit u/s. 153(1) r.w.s

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

9(1)(vi) of the I.T.Act r.w. Article 12(3) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-Ireland DTAA) and thus chargeable to tax in India in the hands of GIL. The case of the assessee is that the said payments are in the nature of business profits, which are chargeable to tax in Ireland

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO noted that the ITAT, Bangalore has held the payments made to GIL towards Adwords program as royalty vide its order dated 23.10.2017. 4. Based on the above information in the case of GIPL, the AO observed that the assessee-GIL has not filed return of income for the respective assessment years

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO noted that the ITAT, Bangalore has held the payments made to GIL towards Adwords program as royalty vide its order dated 23.10.2017. 4. Based on the above information in the case of GIPL, the AO observed that the assessee-GIL has not filed return of income for the respective assessment years

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

transfer pricing) – 2 (2) (1) (the learned TPO) and the direction issued by The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Bangalore (the DRP) under section 144C (5) of the act wherein the returned income filed by the assessee on 31st of March 2021 declaring total income of ₹ 9

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

9) of sec.10AA specifically states that the provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purpose of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. The provisions of sec. 80IA(8) mandates substitution

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

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.

9 taxmann.com 27 (Del). The learned Sr. Counsel stated that parties to SPA agreed to sell shares on a price and on the basis of such negotiated settlement of the price was the shares of the USL transferred by assessees to Relay BV. It was stated that shares of USL was listed in stock exchange and the weighted average value

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.

9 taxmann.com 27 (Del). The learned Sr. Counsel stated that parties to SPA agreed to sell shares on a price and on the basis of such negotiated settlement of the price was the shares of the USL transferred by assessees to Relay BV. It was stated that shares of USL was listed in stock exchange and the weighted average value