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 dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

price to be charged to the customer etc. are solely taken by MSSPL. The assessee does not play any role in the decision-making process. Further, once the assessee procures the orders, it is at the discretion of MSSPL whether to sell the product or render services to identified customers. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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 dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

price to be charged to the customer etc. are solely taken by MSSPL. The assessee does not play any role in the decision-making process. Further, once the assessee procures the orders, it is at the discretion of MSSPL whether to sell the product or render services to identified customers. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC.,,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as India-US DTAA and the Indian entity was treated as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS. Since, Steer America Inc., USA had not filed ITR in India, there was an IT(IT)A Nos.832 & 833/Bang/2024 Steer America Inc., Bangalore Page 13 of 37 escapement of income

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC., ,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as India-US DTAA and the Indian entity was treated as assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS. Since, Steer America Inc., USA had not filed ITR in India, there was an IT(IT)A Nos.832 & 833/Bang/2024 Steer America Inc., Bangalore Page 13 of 37 escapement of income

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

vii. Once the CBDT itself accepts that these variations could be on account of a variety of factors, essentially bona fide factors, and, for this reason, section 50C(1) should not come into play, it was an 'unintended consequence' of section 50C(1) that even in such bona fide situations, this provision, which is inherently in the nature

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

transfer pricing exercise)\ncannot negate the nature of the transaction. It would lead to an\nabsurd conclusion if, all else constant, the fact that no payment is\ndemanded negates accrual of income to the overseas entity. ......\n\n\".......The nomenclature or lesser-than-expected amount charged\nfor such services cannot change the nature of the services.\nIndeed, once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

transfer pricing exercise)\ncannot negate the nature of the transaction. It would lead to an\nabsurd conclusion if, all else constant, the fact that no payment is\ndemanded negates accrual of income to the overseas entity. ......\n\n\".......The nomenclature or lesser-than-expected amount charged\nfor such services cannot change the nature of the services.\nIndeed, once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

transfer pricing exercise)\ncannot negate the nature of the transaction. It would lead to an\nabsurd conclusion if, all else constant, the fact that no payment is\ndemanded negates accrual of income to the overseas entity. ......"\n\".......The nomenclature or lesser-than-expected amount charged\nfor such services cannot change the nature of the services.\nIndeed, once it is established

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer' was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Under this provision, the onus of computing ALP of the international transactions in certain cases was shifted to the TPO, who was supposed to pass his order under sub-section (3). There was no separate time limit for passing of the 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE., BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

price to be charged to the customer etc. are solely taken by MSSPL. The assessee does not play any role in the decision-making process. Further, once the assessee procures the orders, it is at the discretion of MSSPL whether to sell the product or render services to identified customers. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

price to be charged to the customer etc. are solely taken by MSSPL. The assessee does not play any role in the decision-making process. Further, once the assessee procures the orders, it is at the discretion of MSSPL whether to sell the product or render services to identified customers. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

price to be charged to the customer etc. are solely taken by MSSPL. The assessee does not play any role in the decision-making process. Further, once the assessee procures the orders, it is at the discretion of MSSPL whether to sell the product or render services to identified customers. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded that no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The assessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards Adwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and remanded

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded that no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The assessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards Adwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and remanded

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

vii) Now coming to section 10AA, relevant extract of this section, as applicable to A.Y. 2013-14 (assessment year involved in assessee's case), is reproduced here under: "10AA. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in computing the total income of an assessee, being an entrepreneur as referred to in clause(j) of section 2 of the Special