“directions of the DRP”

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(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.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 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 ... finds that it fails the export filter of > 75%.” 27. In the order passed by the TPO dated 20.04.2021, pursuant to the directions of the DRP, this direction of the DRP has not been considered. We deem it fit and proper to remand the question of comparability of this company

M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

Transfer Pricing issues. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO passed as per the directions of the DRP in the second round. We will adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds by the assessee in the following paragraphs

M/S Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(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.3368/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Pritech Park, Block Nok.12, 3Rd Floor, 5Th Ward – 1(1)(1), Floor, B-Wing & 4Th Floor, B-Wing, Bengaluru. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru-560 103. Pan : Aaaco 9467 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

pages 1211 to 1267 of the Assessee’s paper book filed before us. 24. The AO while giving effect to the directions of the DRP examined the documents filed and came to the conclusion that certain bills did not pertain to AY 2014-15 and period of license was more ... indefinite period. 26. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the directions of the DRP was to examine as to whether the software in question were application software or renewal of license for application software for a period

Emc Software and Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Emc Software & Services Ito, Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(3), 112, 113, Akruti Sankul, 2Nd Floor, A – Wing, Room No.205, Opp. Janata Sahakari Bank, Pmt Commercial Complex, Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road, Shankar-Seth Road, Pune – 411 030. Pune – 411 037. Pan : Aabct 0199 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

Rs.48,54,50,000/- in the ITeS and the Software Development (SWD) services segment. The TPO passed the order giving effect to the directions of the DRP dated 29.01.2016. 3. Thereafter, the assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act before the TPO pointing out certain mistakes ... order passed by the TPO giving effect to the directions of the DRP. On said application, the TPO passed an order dated 18.02.2019 under section 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the Act in which the TP adjustment stood reduced to Nil. 4. In view of the aforesaid order dated

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.

direction. Therefore, it was submitted that the final assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act was pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The DRP’s directions is dated 23.12.2016. As per section 144C ... I.T.Act, the A.O. has to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which such direction of the DRP is received by him. In the instant case, the final assessment order is dated 24.01.2017 (i.e., well within the time limit contemplated u/s 144C

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

final assessment order dated 31.1.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] pursuant to the directions of the DRP for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee company was established as a 100% export oriented unit registered under the Software Technology ... total turnover also. The grievance of the assessee is that the AO in the final assessment order has not complied with the directions of the DRP. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Tesco Bangalore Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

final assessment order dated 26.9.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 2. The assessee company was established as a 100% export oriented unit registered under the Software Technology Parks of India scheme

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)

No.259/Bang/2022 M/s.Himalaya Wellness Company. I.T.Act. The DRP dismissed the objection of the assessee. The A.O. considering the directions of the DRP, passed final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act dated 17.02.2022 and determined total income of Rs.414,86,12,580. Aggrieved by the final assessment order

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)

working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 8.2 The learned DR supported the directions of the DRP. 8.3 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. In view of the rulings in the case of M/s.Hauwei Technologies India

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

order in its entirety. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT 4. The FAR analysis of the assessee as per the TPO’s order reads as under 2.1. Enstage Software Private ... objections of the assessee and affirmed the adjustment made by the TPO. The AO passed the final assessment order in line with the directions of the DRP, in which the TP adjustment of Rs. 1,86,14,568/- was incorporated. 10. The assessee has raised several sub-grounds in Ground

M/S. Brillio Technologies Private Limited (Formerly Known As Collabera Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

operating in a similar market and there is no much difference as far as other criteria are concerned. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the final assessment order was passed, aggrieved with which, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which were partly allowed, vide its directions dated 14.09.2018. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.10.2018 in which the TP adjustment came to be reworked. Aggrieved by the final assessment order ... case of DCIT Vs. Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any reason to interefere with the directions of the DRP on this issue. (iv) L&T Infotech Ltd. 19. ***** We further find that the comparability of this company has been considered by the co-ordinate

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

Circle – 3 (1)(2), Bangalore for A.Y. 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: IT(TP)A No. 810/Bang/2016 – Revenue’s Appeal: “The directions of the DRP are opposed to law and facts of the case. i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Whether the Hon'ble DRP ... raising objections before the DRP, the computation by the Ld.AO was upheld. 5.3 In the impugned order, the Ld.AO as per the directions of the DRP, set-off brought forward business losses incurred by the non- eligible units with the profit of the eligible units while computing the deduction

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

Circle – 3 (1)(2), Bangalore for A.Y. 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: IT(TP)A No. 810/Bang/2016 – Revenue’s Appeal: “The directions of the DRP are opposed to law and facts of the case. i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Whether the Hon'ble DRP ... raising objections before the DRP, the computation by the Ld.AO was upheld. 5.3 In the impugned order, the Ld.AO as per the directions of the DRP, set-off brought forward business losses incurred by the non- eligible units with the profit of the eligible units while computing the deduction

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

objections of the assessee as without merit. We direct the Assessing officer accordingly.” 11. Aggrieved by the final order of assessment incorporating the directions of the DRP, the assessee has raised ground Nos.2.1 to 2.9 before the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the rival submissions. The ld. counsel

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

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.233/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Magnum, Circle – 7(1)(1), Doraisani Palya, Iim Post, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. Pan : Aafca 8051 P Appellant Respondent

which the assessee filed objections before the DRP was confirmed by the DRP. The AO passed the final order of assessment incorporating the directions of the DRP against which the assessee has raised ground Nos.2 to 7 before the Tribunal. 4. As far as the question whether the transaction ... directed to re-work the interest computation based on the delay of individual invoice as per the directions of the DRP. It is ordered accordingly. 5.5 In the result, grounds 26 to 31 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 10. The parties accordingly prayed for a remand of the issue