“directions of the DRP”

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

prejudice the ld AR submitted that in any event, the interest rate, if at all ought to be LIBOR plus, and not as directed by the DRP. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Swiss Re Global Business Solutions ... authorities. In view of this we remit the issue back to the AO with a direction to verify the details as per the directions of the DRP and the additional details filed through the rectification petition u/s.154 filed by the assessee and decide the allowability in accordance with law. Needless

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vide order dated 30.03.2021. The DRP directed the TPO to remove Kals Information Systems Ltd (seg) as a comparable. 2.8 Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144C(1) on 29.05.2021 retaining the addition ... draft assessment order ignoring and without giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 2.9 Against the orders of the authorities, the Assessee has preferred the above appeal before this Tribunal on 15.07.2021 raising the following grounds of appeal. 1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vide order dated 30.03.2021. The DRP directed the TPO to remove Kals Information Systems Ltd (seg) as a comparable. 2.8 Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144C(1) on 29.05.2021 retaining the addition ... draft assessment order ignoring and without giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 2.9 Against the orders of the authorities, the Assessee has preferred the above appeal before this Tribunal on 15.07.2021 raising the following grounds of appeal. 1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

income of the assessee by the AO. The assessee filed objections before the DRP and 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 ... additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal is with regard to the action of the TPO in not giving effect to the directions of the DRP directing Devita Engineering (India) Ltd., as a comparable company. It is undisputed that the DRP in its directions directed Devita Engineering (India

M/S. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

order of assessment but the DRP rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the order passed by the TPO. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order wherein, the TP adjustment was sustained. Against the final order of assessment passed

Global E-Business Operations 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

vide para 3.10 has accepted the assessee's objections and accordingly, directed the TPO to exclude the above three companies. There are other directions of the DRP on TP adjustments on which neither party has raised grounds, except the Revenue on the above exclusion of three companies. 7. Referring ... No.212/Bang/2021. M/s.Global E-Business Operations Pvt.Ltd. accordingly, directed the TPO to exclude the above three companies. There are other directions of the DRP on TP adjustments on which neither party has raised grounds, except the Revenue on the above exclusion of three companies. 7. Referring to the order

Puma Sports India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 306/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Rs.6,59,34,345/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed giving effect to the directions of the DRP. The Tribunal vide order dated 13,.03.2020 remanded the issue back to the DRP for a fresh decision. The relevant portion of the decision

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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 ... amounts to cherry picking. Accordingly, the plea for inclusion of these companies is rejected.” 19. It can be seen from the directions of the DRP that they have rejected the plea of the Assessee only on the basis that these companies do not figure in the search matrix

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

need to be allowed as the facilities/services have been utilised by the Assessee and allowed certain portion of these service charges. The said Directions of the DRP attained finality, pursuant to orders passed by the AO for the respective Assessment Years, to give effect to the DRP Directions ... said adjustment, i.e., to the extent of expenses rendered on per user basis, was deleted. It was submitted that the said Directions of the DRP for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11, having attained finality, ought to be considered and given due weightage by the lower authorities in respect

Trivium Esolutions 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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 444/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

hearing he learned A.R. contended only the issue of the final assessment order of the AO not being in accordance with the directions of the DRP and therefore liable to be quashed. The learned A.R. further submitted that if this ground is adjudicated the rest of the grounds raised with ... factually established that the AO in the final order of assessment dated 17/1/2014 has not given effect to or carried out the binding directions of the DRP as required u/s 144C(10) within the time specified u/s 144C(13) of the Act; which is a clear violation of the binding

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

income of the assessee by the AO. The assessee filed objections before the DRP and 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

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

DRP against the TP adjustment. The DRP confirmed the TP adjustment and the AO passed the final order of assessment as per the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.240/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 24 4. The assessee has entered into

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

margin and directed the assessing officer to verify the nature of expenditure claimed with respect to software packages. Subsequently giving effect to the directions of the DRP and considering the various details furnished by the assessing the TPO recomputed the TP adjustment to ₹ 56,71,72,441 and the assessing ... Rs.18,15,263/- is for a period of less than one year and allowed the same as revenue expenditure as per the directions of the DRP and recomputed the disallowance accordingly. 25 IT(TP)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 M/s. Hewlett-Packard (India) 32. Before us the learned A.R. submitted that