“dispute resolution panel”

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

appeal relating to Corporate Tax matters 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore ("DRP") erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer by rejecting the audit adjustments made in the financial statements amounting ... with the same. Grounds of appeal relating to Transfer Pricing matters 7. The learned Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (learned DRP) erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing (TP') documentation by the learned TPO and in upholding the adjustment to the transfer

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection to any such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel and also the Assessing Officer. Sub-Section (5) of Section 144C of the Act provides that if any objections are raised by the assessee before ... Dispute Resolution Panel, the Panel is empowered to issue such direction as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer after considering various details provided in Clauses (A) to (G) thereof. Sub- Section (l3) of Section 144C of the Act provides that upon receipt of directions issued under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection to any such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel and also the Assessing Officer. Sub-Section (5) of Section 144C of the Act provides that if any objections are raised by the assessee before ... Dispute Resolution Panel, the Panel is empowered to issue such direction as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer after considering various details provided in Clauses (A) to (G) thereof. Sub- Section (l3) of Section 144C of the Act provides that upon receipt of directions issued under

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) ('the AO'), pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 1.2. The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP') has erred

M/S. Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

appeal:- 1. “That the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" or "AO") and the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("learned Panel") erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing'('TP') documentation by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing — Range ... Final Order/OGE passed by the learned AO/TPO, is not in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"), covered in our averments in Ground No. 22, 24 & 28 and thus is bad in law as per provisions of section 144C(10) r.w.s. 144C

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Doctors Total 3,82,09,463 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 31.05.2021. The DRP issued directions vide its order dated 12.01.2022 u/s 144C(5) r.w.s. 144C(8) of the 3 IT(TP)A No.259/Bang/2022 M/s.Himalaya ... Appellant is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in so far as the same are prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant are not justified in law and on facts and circumstances

Ametek Instruments India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

draft assessment order was passed incorporating the above TP adjustment. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP did not grant any relief with regard to the exclusion / inclusion of comparable companies. The DRP directed the TPO to recompute

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed. xxi) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and /or delete

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed. xxi) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and /or delete

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP') grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 38,75,40,000/- to the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the Appellant

M/S. L G Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO') and the Honourable IT(TP)A No.2412/Bang/2019 M/s. LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 33 Dispute Resolution Panel (`Hon'ble DRP') grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 19,64,72,927/- with respect to the international transaction rendered ... banking and financial services and insurance sector and also as R&D operations and patents and hence not functionally comparable. However, Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) observed that this company is only engaged in software development and related services as seen from its financials. Therefore, the plea of the assessee

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

brought to tax, the BT charges received by the Assessee from MCPL in his draft assessment order. The Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the conclusions of the AO in the draft assessment order. The DRP upheld the order of the AO. The AO passed

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

brought to tax, the BT charges received by the Assessee from MCPL in his draft assessment order. The Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the conclusions of the AO in the draft assessment order. The DRP upheld the order of the AO. The AO passed

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

adjustment. Further, the A.O. had made several corporate tax additions / disallowances. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 19.12.2016, partly accepted the objections raised by the assessee. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, final assessment ... raising the following grounds:- I. Transfer Pricing 1. The learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO"), learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("learned TPO'") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP") grossly erred in adjusting the transfer price by INR 53,41,8751- of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ltu, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

adjustment. Further, the A.O. had made several corporate tax additions / disallowances. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 19.12.2016, partly accepted the objections raised by the assessee. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, final assessment ... raising the following grounds:- I. Transfer Pricing 1. The learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO"), learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("learned TPO'") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP") grossly erred in adjusting the transfer price by INR 53,41,8751- of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated

Prasanna Kumar, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.229/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Prasanna Kumar Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4-3-298/12, Palemar International Taxation Vs. Bejai Church, Cross Road Circle - 2(2), Bangalore Mangalore 575004 Pan –Bfapk0601P Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act") in pursuance of directions given by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the AO on the following issues: (a) Rejection of claim of cost of improvement