SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

transfer pricing analysis as contemplated under section 92 ; to the contrary, it accepted the assessee's stated return (absent any benchmarking) as the true and correct value under an implicit (and incorrect) understanding of section 92(3). 30. As regards the costs incurred by CWHK, a further issue arises. Whilst the costs incurred by Mr. Braganza

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

9. For that the Hon'ble DRP erred in law as well as on facts, in directing the TPO to make an estimated 1% adjustment on account of Risk when Transfer pricing regulations in India is against any assumption in respect to any adjustment and further when there is also no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into quantitative

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

9. For that the Hon'ble DRP erred in law as well as on facts, in directing the TPO to make an estimated 1% adjustment on account of Risk when Transfer pricing regulations in India is against any assumption in respect to any adjustment and further when there is also no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into quantitative

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

9) TMI -2-(SC). The Assessee has made elaborate arguments in its written submission dated 25/10/2017 contending that, the scheme of capital reduction in shares of ANNPL (Assessee'ssubsidiary) fell within the purview of definition of transfer envisaged u/s 2(47) of the 1.T. Act, and as laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Kartikeya

M/S.SOFTTEK INDIA PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 220(6) of the Act. We are of the opinion that this was not permissible in law.” 8. On the basis of the above said judgment it was contented that the initial reference was made to ACIT transfer pricing (2)(2), Bangalore. However the order has been passed by the DCIT transfer pricing (2)(2) u/s. 92CA

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

9 of 1910) or] the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 ; (54 of 1948.) (d) to any other company governed by any special Act for the time being in force, except in so far as the said provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of such special Act; (e) to such body corporate, incorporated by any Act for the time being in force

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA.”” 27.4. It is also relatively well settled that

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

9 of 1910) or] the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 ; (54 of 1948.) (d) to any other company governed by any special Act for the time being in force, except in so far as the said provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of such special Act; (e) to such body corporate, incorporated by any Act for the time being in force

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Act, disallowance of software expenditure, and disallowance of payment of legal and professional expenditure is based on incorrect interpretation of law and therefore, is bad in law, and hence, liable to be modified. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Act 2. The learned

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

Transfer Pricing Regulations contained in Sections 92, 92CA to 92F of the income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (Rules). The Assessee reported the following international transaction with Novo Nordisk A/S in the report filed u/s.92E of the Act in Form No. 3CEB:- IT(TP)A No.146/Bang/2015 Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

9(1)(vi) royalty income will be taxable in India whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. 11.9. The Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics (345 ITR 494) (Kar) had occasion to examine the term "royalty" vis-à-vis "computer software". The Hon’ble Court observed