← All Phrases

“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
71
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
44
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
30
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
17
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
15
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
14
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

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 for statistical purposes

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

opinion, the AO is bound by the directions of DRP and he has to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the directions of the DRP. Ordered accordingly. 44. Ground No.2.10 is with regard to working capital adjustment for determining the ALP. 45. The ld. AR submitted that

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

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

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (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 Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR
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 ... Assessee. The stand of the TPO was affirmed by the DRP. The Assessee is appeal against the order of the AO incorporating the directions of the DRP. The main grievance of the in this appeal is reflected in Ground No.3 of concise grounds of appeal, which reads as follows

M/S. Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Private Limited (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent Platforms Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.356/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Emerson Automation The Assistant Commissioner Solutions Intelligent Platforms Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S.Ge Intelligent Platforms Private Limited) Velankani Tech Park, Building 9 First Floor, 43 Hosur Road Bangalore 560 100 Pan : Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Sachit Jolly & Aayush Nagpal, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 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 30.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Process Industrial Automation That Includes Manufacture & Trading Of Automation Products, Solutions & Services For The Process Controlled Application. For The Relevant Assessment Year The Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.1,06,46,560. The 2 It(Tp)A No.356/Bang/2018 M/S.Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt.Ltd Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2016 Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Proposed The Following Adjustments:- Segment Value Of Adjustment (Rs.) Manufacturing Segment 4,43,23,760 Hq Charges 86,39,654 Total 5,37,40,836

For Appellant: S/Sri.Sachit Jolly & Aayush Nagpal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 71Section 92C

verify the claim of the assessee and rectify the same if there is any error in the computation of the TPO. The directions of the DRP read as follows:- “Having considered the submissions, we note that the TPO has arrived at segmental margin for the manufacturing segment (given at page ... DRP in its order had directed the AO to examine the claim of the assessee. The relevant objections before the DRP and the directions of the DRP in regards to the above grounds read as follows:- 11 IT(TP)A No.356/Bang/2018 M/s.Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt.Ltd “That

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

Rohm and Hass 16 (India) Private Limited AO/TPO. After considering the comments of the AO/TPO, the Ld. DRP observed as under: “5.2 Discussion & Direction of the DRP: We have considered the order of the AO/TPO, submissions of the assessee, additional evidences filed by the assessee, remand report of the assessee ... selection of comparables under the TNMM. The Ld. DRP upheld selection of one comparable by the Ld. TPO as under: “7.2 Discussions & Directions of the DRP: It is noted that the TO, in his order, has adopted 4 companies (Jupiter Bioscience Limited, Fineotex Chemical Limited, Jubilant Life Sciences Limited, Vivimed

Shrenuj & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1210/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 14Section 144CSection 4

orders of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income- tax Act in pursuance to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR has brought to the knowledge

Shrenuj & Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2069/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 14Section 144CSection 4

orders of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income- tax Act in pursuance to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR has brought to the knowledge

Shrenuj & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 32/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 14Section 144CSection 4

orders of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income- tax Act in pursuance to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR has brought to the knowledge

Shrenuj & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 473/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 14Section 144CSection 4

orders of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income- tax Act in pursuance to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR has brought to the knowledge

Shrenuj & Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5352/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 14Section 144CSection 4

orders of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income- tax Act in pursuance to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR has brought to the knowledge

M/S Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 11 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.9, Salarpuria Cambridge Mall Bangalore – 560 008. Pan : Aaacv7566R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2022 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 31.01.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services & Sales & Marketing Support Services To Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Services Are Provided On Cost Plus Basis. The Assessee Is Also Engaged In Software Distribution Activities. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Reference Was Made To The Tpo To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Aes. The 2 It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022. M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Limited. Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.01.2021 U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

made by the TPO. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP on 21.04.2021. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, an order giving effect to it was passed by the TPO dated 21.01.2022 making the following TP adjustments: Name of the Segment Average margin ... without considering the order giving effect to u/s 92CA(4) of the I.T.Act, passed by the TPO pursuant to the directions of the DRP, wherein the TPO had revised TP adjustment to Rs.6,15,49,522 in respect of software development segment. The learned AR had placed on record copy

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 25.03.2021, partly allowed the objection raised by the assessee. Pursuant ot the directions of the DRP, final assessment order was passed dated 30.04.2021 in which the TP adjustment was worked out to Rs.4,30,60,301 and adjustment pertaining ... ground. Further, the DRP also accepted the contention of the assessee that Sagarsoft India Limited should be included. On giving effect to the directions of the DRP, the TP adjustment in respect of software development services was reduced to Rs.3,47,04,593. The comparable that remained pursuant

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 92CSection 92C(4)

sought setting off of the eligible brought forward business losses and unabsorbed expenditure. The Ld. DRP has held as under : “12.3 Discussion and directions of the DRP: The DRP has considered the matter. The A,O. has observed that brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation cannot

Black Knight India Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on ground no

ITA 230/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Black Knight India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 6-3-1192-2-1, Htc Commissioner Of Towers, Kundanbagh, Income Tax, Begumpet, Circle – 1(1)(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Bangalore. Telangana – 500 016. Pan: Aaccl2956K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Ao In National E-Assessment For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment Order Dated 30 March 2021 (And Received By The Appellant On 30 March 2021) Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO erred in not following the directions of the DRP which leads to deletion of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,40,95,771 while issuing the final assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s ... computing the margin of the comparables i.e. CG-VAK Software and Exports Ltd. and Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of the DRP. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that DRP directions in para 2.21.15 & 2.22.1 has not been carried out by the Ld.AO, while passing the final assessment order

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 144C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law- 1. The learned AO I Transfer Pricing Officer (''TP0"), based on directions of the DRP, erred in assessing the total income at Rs.53,66.26.873 as against returned income of Rs.17,12,92.190 computed by the Appellant

M/S Nava Karnataka Steels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92D

made towards PF&ESI. The DRP however confirmed the TP adjustment made by the TPO. The AO concluded the assessment by considering the directions of the DRP and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 92CA of the Act vide his order dated ... view of the above decision the various grounds raised by the with respect to transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO and the direction of the DRP have become infructuous and hence dismissed. The AO is directed to look into the facts afresh and decide the case

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

assessee, which is a normal distributor and does not perform assembling work. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the directions of the DRP given the clear functional dissimilarity between Dynalog (India) Limited and the assessee. Accordingly, we reject ground 3 raised by the Revenue. Ground 4 (TP adjustment ... engaged in the business of provision of services and in absence of segmental financial, we find no reason to interfere with the directions of the DRP. Therefore, we dismiss ground 4 raised by the Revenue. Grounds 5 and 6 (Corporate Tax issues – Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

assessee, which is a normal distributor and does not perform assembling work. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the directions of the DRP given the clear functional dissimilarity between Dynalog (India) Limited and the assessee. Accordingly, we reject ground 3 raised by the Revenue. Ground 4 (TP adjustment ... engaged in the business of provision of services and in absence of segmental financial, we find no reason to interfere with the directions of the DRP. Therefore, we dismiss ground 4 raised by the Revenue. Grounds 5 and 6 (Corporate Tax issues – Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

account for the differences in the working capital positions of the Appellant and of the comparable companies. c) That, despite the binding directions of the DRP, the AO / TPO grossly erred in law and on facts in not excluding the Appellant's cost of depreciation from its operating cost bases ... international transactions of provision of software development services and telecom support services, and thus erred in not complying with the binding directions of the DRP in this regard. 7. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean That the AO/TPO erred in law in not granting the benefit of the proviso

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

account for the differences in the working capital positions of the Appellant and of the comparable companies. c) That, despite the binding directions of the DRP, the AO / TPO grossly erred in law and on facts in not excluding the Appellant's cost of depreciation from its operating cost bases ... international transactions of provision of software development services and telecom support services, and thus erred in not complying with the binding directions of the DRP in this regard. 7. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean That the AO/TPO erred in law in not granting the benefit of the proviso

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

IB/80-IC by reallocating common indirect expenses 3.2 The invocation of Section 80-IA(10) was also overruled by Ld. DRP by following the directions of Ld. DRP in earlier AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4.1 We have carefully considered the same