← All Phrases

“transfer pricing order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 92CASection 92CA358 judgments

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

Leading authorities on transfer pricing order

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).

Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India
2 SCC 536 · 2000 · Reported
117
citing judgments

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

International Air Transport Association v. DCIT
68 Taxmann.com 246 · 2016 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Failure to follow the procedure laid down in Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constitutes a breach of mandatory provisions, rendering the final assessment order void.

Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
433 ITR 28 · 2021 · High Court
36
citing judgments

A transfer pricing order passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, computed in accordance with Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT
124 Taxmann.com 536 · 2021 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Assessment orders made beyond the time limits prescribed under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, considering the specific provisions for transfer pricing assessments, are liable to be quashed.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. ACIT
106 ITD 521 · 2006 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

The benchmarking of interest rates on loans advanced to associated enterprises in foreign currency should consider LIBOR, comparing related transactions involving loan advancements and interest charges.

DCIT v. Saint Gobain India (P.) Ltd.
444 ITR 636 · 2022 · High Court
17
citing judgments

An order passed by the TPO is bad in law if it is beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 92CA(3A) read with section 153 of the Act.

Barclays Bank PLC v. ADIT
90 Taxmann.com 378 · 2018 · Reported
17
citing judgments

A transfer pricing officer (TPO) must follow the prescribed method under section 92C for determining the arm's length price. If the TPO fails to do so, the matter cannot be remanded back to the TPO, and the ITAT order should be followed.

Judgments citing transfer pricing order

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 278/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand

development segment 2. ITeS Segment 6,63,44,460 Total adjustment u/s 92CA 18,16,94,876/- 2.9 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 27/11/2019 by proposing to make an addition of Rs.18,16,94,876/- in respect of the international

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2068/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 250Section 253

thus disallowed sum of Rs.4,83,50,378/- paid by assessee towards administrative service fee. 2.10 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 14/03/2006 by making an addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs.12,59,12,420/-. Aggrieved

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2067/BANG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 250Section 253

thus disallowed sum of Rs.4,83,50,378/- paid by assessee towards administrative service fee. 2.10 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 14/03/2006 by making an addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs.12,59,12,420/-. Aggrieved

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.ws 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 31 March 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.ws 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 31 March 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without

Dow Agro Sciences India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14 (1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal are disposed of as infructuous

ITA 1234/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sixty Days Prior To “The Timeline For The Assessment Order, It Is Implied That Such Order Must Precede 31 December By Not Less Than Sixty Days.”

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

pressed into service for the Appellant referred to Ground 2 of appeal which read as under: Assessment Year: 2016-17 “Validity of transfer pricing order passed by the learned TPO “2. Erred in not appreciating that the order passed by the Learned TPO on 1 November 2019 is time barred ... since Section 92CA(3A) of the Act requires the transfer pricing order to be passed “at any time before sixty days prior to “the timeline for the assessment order, it is implied that such order must precede 31 December by not less than sixty days.” 3. Learned Authorised Representative

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

ITA 711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT-DR
Section 92C(3)(c)Section 92D

taxpayer I 14,53,95,055 Adjustment on international J=H-I 1,04,01,313 transactions 7.6 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order by making a further disallowance as under:  Disallowance of secondment expenses at Rs.31,09,572/-  Disallowance of broadband charges

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 220/BANG/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, CIT-DR

ITES segment, being the shortfall. Page 10 of 53 IT(TP)A No. 220/Bang/2021 2.8 On receipt of the transfer pricing order the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/12/2019. In the draft assessment order the Ld.AO made further additions. 2.9 The Ld.AO noted that during the year under

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

draft assessment order in lieu of the final assessment order without considering that the Appellant is an Indian company in whose case the transfer pricing order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act for the subject AY has not resulted in any variation to the income or loss returned

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

draft assessment order in lieu of the final assessment order without considering that the Appellant is an Indian company in whose case the transfer pricing order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act for the subject AY has not resulted in any variation to the income or loss returned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

evasion or manipulation of prices or of shifting of profits is a condition precedent to making the Transfer Pricing adjustments. 5) The Transfer Pricing Order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) is illegal, bad in law, without authority of law, contrary to the statutory provisions

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

evasion or manipulation of prices or of shifting of profits is a condition precedent to making the Transfer Pricing adjustments. 5) The Transfer Pricing Order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) is illegal, bad in law, without authority of law, contrary to the statutory provisions

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

Therefore penalty proceedings was initiated on 12.06.2017. Reply to notice under section 274 r.w. 271G was given on 15.03.2018, in between transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) was passed. 9. The objections before me is similar to what is stated before Transfer Pricing Officer. The view of Transfer Pricing

M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(2)

adjustment under the 3 segments that are summarized as follows: Page 17 IT(TP)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 3.14 On receipt of the transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 05/12/2018 by making further additions along with the adjustment proposed u/s. 92CA, being disallowance

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

accepted to be at arm's length by the learned Page 4 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 TPO in his transfer pricing order. (corresponding to revised ground no. 4 & original ground no. 4) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`Ace) thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void Page 6 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 and liable to be quashed. (corresponding to additional ground

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

accepted to be at arm's length by the learned Page 4 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 TPO in his transfer pricing order. (corresponding to revised ground no. 4 & original ground no. 4) 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`Ace) thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void Page 6 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 and liable to be quashed. (corresponding to additional ground

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

records placed before us. Page 12 IT(TP)A Nos. 606/Bang/2021 & 2510/Bang/2019 3.6 It is submitted that, this comparable was not part of transfer pricing order for A.Y. 2007-08 and any of the preceding assessment year. Placing reliance on the rectification order passed by the Ld.AO dated 14/11/2018 ... shortfall. Page 16 IT(TP)A Nos. 606/Bang/2021 & 2510/Bang/2019 6.5 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. 6.6 On receipt of the draft assessment order dated 10/12/2018, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 6.7 The DRP upheld

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

records placed before us. Page 12 IT(TP)A Nos. 606/Bang/2021 & 2510/Bang/2019 3.6 It is submitted that, this comparable was not part of transfer pricing order for A.Y. 2007-08 and any of the preceding assessment year. Placing reliance on the rectification order passed by the Ld.AO dated 14/11/2018 ... shortfall. Page 16 IT(TP)A Nos. 606/Bang/2021 & 2510/Bang/2019 6.5 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. 6.6 On receipt of the draft assessment order dated 10/12/2018, assessee filed objections before the DRP. 6.7 The DRP upheld

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA
Section 40Section 92C

passed by the Ld.TPO on 01/09/2016, wherein, no adjustment was made in respect of the international transactions. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO while passing draft assessment order made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the expenses claimed as reimbursement of cost

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA
Section 40Section 92C

passed by the Ld.TPO on 01/09/2016, wherein, no adjustment was made in respect of the international transactions. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO while passing draft assessment order made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the expenses claimed as reimbursement of cost