“directions of the DRP”

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

benchmarking analysis; and iv. Exclude Ultramarine and Pigment Limited in the set of comparable companies used for benchmarking analysis. 9. Consequent to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final Order of Assessment whereby the addition as made in the draft Assessment Order was retained. 10. Aggrieved ... laws relied by the assessee are different in facts and law and are not applicable in the present case. 20. Aggrieved by the directions of the DRP, assessee has preferred ground No.10 before the Tribunal. 21. We have heard the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions made

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

reducing the disallowance u/s. 14A. The AO passed the final IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 24 assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Interest on delayed receivables 5. During the course of TP proceedings ... Rule 8Dand made a disallowance of Rs.95,31,950. The DRP against the objections raised by the assessee gave the following directions: i) The DRP directed the AO to delete the amount of Rs.20,388 under Rule 8D(2)(i). ii) The DRP directed the AO to delete the disallowance

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

Order before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s.144C of the Act. The DRP gave certain directions dated 29.12.2004 to the TPO. Consequent to the directions of the DRP, the transfer pricing adjustment stood reduced by Rs.21,84,175/-. A final order of assessment was passed by the AO dated 16.1.2015, against ... services segment of the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the directions of the DRP in excluding this company from the list of comparables This ground of CO is dismissed.” 13. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we direct

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

once again against IT(TP)A No.339/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 17 the final assessment order passed by the AO as per the revised directions of the DRP. Exclusion of certain comparables 5. As per the TP study of the assessee during the year under consideration the assessee’s purchases from

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

reduced to Rs.31,36,95,835 and upheld the disallowances/additions made by the AO. The AO passed the final order pursuant to the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee raised grounds relating to the following issues i. Ground Nos.1 ... Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OR 36,37,43,477 12. The assessee preferred its objections before the DRP. Consequent to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO which according to the assessee is not in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 7. During the course of hearing the ld. AR drew our attention to the following directions of the DRP:- “5.1.1 M/s. Archroma India ... that this company is functionally dissimilar and is directed to be excluded.” 8. It is submitted by the ld AR that had the directions of the DRP, been considered the AO/TPO, then the amount of TP adjustment would have undergone change and the revised TP adjustment should have been included

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, who upheld the draft assessment order. In accordance with the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 3 of 12 4. The assessee has entered into

Brocade Communications Systems Private Limited, Bengluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

passed on 25/09/2017 by making an addition based on the adjustment made by the Ld.TPO u/s. 92CA which was enhanced by the directions of the DRP to Rs. 15,34,02,063/-. 2.3 Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT on verification of the assessment record, was of the opinion that assessee had received ... cannot seek to revise the order of the Page 7 of 10 AO which was already been a subject matter of directions by the DRP. In this regard, learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Barclays Bank

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

addition proposed in the draft assessment order. 2.9 Aggrieved by the Draft assessment order, the assessee raised objection before the DRP. The directions by the DRP are as follows: (i) The DRP directed recomputation of margin of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Cybage Software ... Ugam Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Killick Page 12 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 235/Bang/2021 Agencies & Marketing Ltd. and Scarecrow Communications Ltd. Were directed by the DRP for recomputation of margin. (ii) Further, the DRP directed the inclusion of Benchmark IT Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., while the other objections

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill made by the AO. The AO passed the final order of assessment as per the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Transfer Pricing adjustment 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee had the following ... verify the invoice-wise receipt of payments and compute the interest as per SBI short term deposit rate. The relevant directions of the DRP is extracted below:- “2.5.26. The TPO in the absence for proper invoice wise details has charged interest on delayed trade receivables from AES adopting LIBOR rate

Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

verifying the computational mistakes pointed out by the assessee. The TPO while passing the order giving effect to Page 3 of 6 the directions of the DRP did not consider the computational mistakes. Further the TPO has erroneously considered the payable to the AE as receivable due to which

M/S. Nike 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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 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 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

above ground, the assessee contends that the A.O. has not granted interest u/s 244A of the I.T.Act on the refund determined despite the directions of the DRP to examine the same and grant interest as per law. 27. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record ... direct the A.O. to examine the issue and follow the directions of the DRP. It is ordered accordingly. Therefore, ground 12 is allowed for statistical purposes. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 24th day of August, 2022. (Padmavathy

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

corporate tax front, partial relief was given to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of excess depreciation on motor vehicles. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the impugned final assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 03.01.2017, the assessee has filed the present appeal raising ... find any infirmity in independently evaluating the transaction of AMP by the TPO. The above objections are accordingly rejected" 6. Aggrieved by the directions of the DRP, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that Bright Line Test is not one of the prescribed