“directions of the DRP”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C1,202 judgments

The decision most relied on for directions of the DRP is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), cited in 269 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on directions of the DRP

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP

369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court

140

citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India

388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

32 Taxmann.com 21 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

A change in depreciation policy impacts an entity's profitability, which is a key factor in assessing its suitability as a comparable company for transfer pricing analysis.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT (International Taxation)

457 ITR 161 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

The limitation period for passing an assessment order under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act prevails over the specific time restriction for passing a final order under Section 144C(13).

Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

89 Taxmann.com 339 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

An assessment order passed without giving effect to the binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(10) within the stipulated time under section 144C(13) is null and void and must be set aside.

Bombay and Delhi High Courts in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Central Processing Centre

459 ITR 413 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

When determining the date of receipt of Directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of limitation, the date of uploading the DRP's directions is considered the date of receipt, even if the AO claims to have received it later through email. This interpretation prevents parties from exploiting a later date to their advantage and adheres to a singular, unambiguous approach to reckoning limitation.

Trib.). 14. Bramhacorp Hotels & Resorts Ltd. v. DDIT

103 Taxmann.com 344 · 2019 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must comply with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) when passing final assessment orders, and failure to do so may warrant setting aside the assessment with a direction for compliance.

Judgments citing directions of the DRP

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

sales promotion expenses for an amount of Rs.1,58,88,337. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. As per the directions of the DRP the TP adjustment was enhanced to Rs.27,48,87,330. The DRP also confirmed the disallowance made by the AO towards seminars, conventions ... appeal IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 31 before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure - Ground Nos.3 to 20 4. The TPO observed that the assessee has incurred an expense of Rs.9658 lakhs

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited( Formerly Known As Symphoney Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 16.12.2015, disposed of the objections of the assessee. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the TPO gave effect to the same and consequently the TP adjustment was revised to `Nil’ as against Rs.18,10,43,171 proposed ... times of the turnover should be adopted while adopting the turnover filter. 6. The learned AR, on the other hand, relied on the directions of the DRP and also the order of the Tribunal in the case of Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.101/Bang/2016 (order dated

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit (Ltu) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 3250/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80G

year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced below:- 1. “Impugned order of learned ("Ld.") AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and directions of Ld. DRP are based on incorrect IT(TP)A No.3250/Bang/2018 M/s. Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 29 appreciation of facts and incorrect ... samples were distributed had been submitted. 5.3 Ld. AO/DRP have erred, in law and in facts, in disallowing samples, by relying on the directions of the DRP for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. without considering the submissions made and judicial precedents relied on by the Appellant. 5.4 Without

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

144C (13) and 144B of the act. 4. This order has been passed after considering the order of TPO u/s 92CA (3) and directions of the DRP u/s 144C (5). Against this return income assessment was done at Rs 546, 05, 70,508/- and income under sec. 115JB

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 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 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

vide its directions dated 29.01.2022 rejected the assessee’s objections and confirmed the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. Aggrieved by the directions of the DRP, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ajay Vohra submitted that the issue in question is squarely

Kontoor Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.214/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Kontoor Brands India Private The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As Vf Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) V. Bangalore. Brands India Private Limited) Awfis, 1St Floor, Shabari Complex Field Marshal Cariappa Road Ashok Nagar, Bangalore North Richmond Town S.O. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccv2727L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 02.02.2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T.Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 34 Grounds, But During The Course Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Confined His Argument Only To Ground No.1, Challenging The Legal Issue, Which Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Sri.Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

barred by limitation, as the A.O. should have passed his order within one month from the date of receipt of the directions of the DRP u/s 144C(13) of the Act. The directions were given by the learned DRP on 20.12.2021, and which was received

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

addition of Rs.4,21,64,190/-. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) but remained unsuccessful. Consequent to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order which is the subject matter of appeal. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 147

assessee is further corroborated by the observations of the DRP at page 56 of the DRP directions. The DRP following the direction of the DRP in Assessment Year 2016-17 on the same issue rejected the objections raised by the assessee in the impugned assessment year. Further, the DRP ... page 54 of the directions has categorically observed that the issue involved is pari-materia to Assessment Year 2016-17, hence, quoting the directions of the DRP for 2016-17 rejected the objections of the assessee. 7. The assessee in ITA No.7209/Mum/2019 had assailed the assessment order for Assessment Year

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

these facts, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the DRP on this issue and, accordingly, set aside the directions of the DRP and direct the AO to delete the addition.” [Emphasized by us] No contrary material has been brought to the notice of Bench

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 461/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Disallowance of lease rental a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, relying on the directions of the DRP, erred in not ITA. No. 461/Mum/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 allowing lease rent payments of Rs.50,43,085 on the ground that

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

adjustment made by the TPO in its order under section 92CA(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the TPO gave effect to the directions of the DRP vide order passed on 25.01.2022 and reduced the TP adjustment to Rs. 7,08,45,325/-. 2.7 The Assessing Officer then issued the Final

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

Techno Analytics 8.8 All other objections raised by assessee were rejected. Before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR submitted that on giving effect to the directions of the DRP, the margin of assessee would be +5% range of the margin computed by the Ld.TPO post the working capital adjustment. He also submitted

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

assessee whereby the disallowance towards cost of samples and literature provided to the doctors were deleted. In respect of TP adjustments, the directions of the DRP reduced the TP adjustment to Rs.46,99,767/-. 4. Aggrieved by the final order of assessment the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal ... Hyderabad In the case of M/s Kirby Building Systems India Limited in ITA No. 1759/Hyd/2012, and in ITA 262/Hyd/2014 According to the above directions of the DRP the TPO in the order giving effect arrive at the TP adjustment by applying 5% on Rs.9,39,95,337/-, i.e. Rs.46

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

determination of ALP was added to the total income of the Assessee by the AO. The DRP gave certain directions. Based on the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP, the Assessee ... company was held to be comparable company. 19. We have considered the submissions and are of the view that on identical facts and directions of the DRP, this tribunal in the case of M/s. Prism Network Pvt.Ltyd. Vs. ACIT IT(TP) A.No.349/Bang/2021 order dated

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

India) Pvt. Ltd. exclusion of incomparable companies and inclusion of comparable companies came to be rejected. The final list of comparables post the directions of the DRP is as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Company 1. Kals Information Systems Ltd. 2. E-Zest Solutions Ltd. 3. Rheal Software ... upheld the order of the TPO. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 40. The effect grounds of appeal with regard to the IT Enable Services are as given below: - a. That the TPO while applying

Infinity Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

Corporate Tax Grounds 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, relying on the directions of the DRP, erred in disallowing software expenses incurred by the appellant amounting to Rs.1,00,56,108 on the ground that the same was capital expenditure ... Disallowance of lease rental a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, relying on the directions of the DRP, erred in not allowing lease rent payments of Rs.1,00,59,112 on the ground that the same was capital expenditure

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

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

I.T.Act. 6. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the A.O. passed the impugned final assessment order, without giving effect to the directions of the DRP. The A.O. observed that the TPO has not provided the order giving effect to the directions of the DRP and the assessment was getting time ... adjustment of software development segments, the limited submission of the learned AR is that the A.O. has not given effect to the directions of the DRP and the A.O. may be directed to incorporate the relief granted in the order of TPO giving effect to the DRP’s directions

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

presumption that the AE has cross charged the cost to the assessee. 15.4. On the contrary the Ld.DR relied on the directions of the DRP. IT(TP)A No.190/Bang/2022 M/s. Radisys India Limited, Bangalore Page 32 of 50 15.5. From the records placed before us, the Ld.AR has filed

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R

Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

IT(TP)A No.174/Bang/2022 M/s. Global E-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH