“transfer pricing order”

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

verified to be arm's length using a working capital adjustment even on the comparable companies purportedly selected by the TPO in the transfer pricing order. 1.6. Without prejudice to above, the Hon'ble DRP erred in not adjudicating the Appellant's contention against the comparable companies purportedly selected

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 92CA(3A) of the I.T.Act provides for the time limit for passing the transfer pricing order. The sub-section (3A) to section 92CA of the I.T.Act reads as follows:- “”(3A) Where a reference was made under sub-section (1) before ... time before sixty days (i.e., before 30.01.2015) By 29.01.2015 7. Accordingly, the due date for the TPO to pass the transfer pricing orders for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 should be at any time before 30.01.2014 and 30.01.2015, i.e., on or before 29.01.2014 and 29.01.2015. In the present

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 92CA(3A) of the I.T.Act provides for the time limit for passing the transfer pricing order. The sub-section (3A) to section 92CA of the I.T.Act reads as follows:- “”(3A) Where a reference was made under sub-section (1) before ... time before sixty days (i.e., before 30.01.2015) By 29.01.2015 7. Accordingly, the due date for the TPO to pass the transfer pricing orders for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 should be at any time before 30.01.2014 and 30.01.2015, i.e., on or before 29.01.2014 and 29.01.2015. In the present

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

loan to the AE correctly. Page 14 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 288/Bang/2021 2.13 He thus passed detailed discussion in the transfer pricing order, considered average value coupon rate as determined from comparable loan transaction to be at 3.74 for the comparables. The Ld.TPO thus computed or proposed adjustment

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 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.” 3. The learned AR submitted that the issue raised in the additional ground ... ground 12 for adjudication. 6. The learned AR submitted that vide additional ground No.12, the assessee challenges the period of limitation for passing transfer pricing order by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It was submitted that the order ought to have been passed on or before 29th January, 2015. However

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 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.” 3. The learned AR submitted that the issue raised in the additional ground ... ground 12 for adjudication. 6. The learned AR submitted that vide additional ground No.12, the assessee challenges the period of limitation for passing transfer pricing order by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It was submitted that the order ought to have been passed on or before 29th January, 2015. However

M/S. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Private Limited ( Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 84/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Pvt. Ltd.), The Income-Tax The Masterpiece, Officer, Level 5, Golf Course Road, Ward – 11(1), Sector – 54, Bangalore. Vs. Gurgaon – 122 002. Haryana. Pan: Aaeca8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 05.11.2011 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore [‘Ld. Cit(A)'] & The Learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Ld. Ao') To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Are Bad In Law, Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Liable To Be Quashed.

that the Appellant's international transactions are not at arm's length; 4.6. Upholding the Ld. TPO's approach of issuing the final Transfer Pricing order arbitrarily by excluding the companies which were earlier considered as functionally comparable to the Appellant by the Ld. TPO in the show cause notice ... average margin of 4.54% computed the adjustment, in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 4,19,98,575/-. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft order by disallowing the advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee to be not eligible for deduction

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (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") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

import of finished goods for resale segment. The Ld.TPO thus computed the margin of assessee at 7.78%. 2.4 On receipt of the transfer pricing order u/s. 92CA by the Ld.AO, draft assessment order was passed by making additional disallowances as under: 1) Disallowance of expenditure incurred on fixtures and stores

M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

aside. 14. on going through the TPO’s order as well as annexure D referred to in the transfer pricing order on working capital adjustment, we find that the AO has not given any basis for restricting the adjustment to 1.71%. In all the cases relating to transfer pricing adjustment ... working out the ALP after giving adjustment of working capital as per the calculation of the AO in annexure D annexed to the transfer pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 41. Accordingly we direct the AO/TPO to correctly work out the PLI of the final comparables after

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

aside. 14. on going through the TPO’s order as well as annexure D referred to in the transfer pricing order on working capital adjustment, we find that the AO has not given any basis for restricting the adjustment to 1.71%. In all the cases relating to transfer pricing adjustment ... working out the ALP after giving adjustment of working capital as per the calculation of the AO in annexure D annexed to the transfer pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 41. Accordingly we direct the AO/TPO to correctly work out the PLI of the final comparables after

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

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:-

retained same TP adjustment at Rs.14,02,20,085 as in draft assessment order dated 31.03.2021 despite relief given in the transfer pricing order giving effect to DRP’s directions. 3 IT(TP)A No.106/Bang/2022. M/s.ACI Worldwide Solutions Private Limited. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee filed

M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, Block 12, The Joint Commissioner Unit 2, 5B & 6A Floors, Of Income-Tax, Bellandur Village, Special Range-5, Sarjapur Marathahalli Bangalore. Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco3764E Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Ms. Rashmi, Advocates : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/09/2019 Passed By The Ld.Jcit, Special Range-5, Bangalore Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

grant any working capital or risk adjustment and computed the shortfall at Rs.32,97,03,960/-. 2.8 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order, by making the addition of the transfer pricing adjustment proposed. Subsequently, order under section

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

determine Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee with its AEs. The TPO passed the transfer pricing order dated 30.10.2019 determining the total TP adjustment of Rs.3,48,49,941 in respect of software development services transaction of the assessee

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

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)

assessee’s margin at 2.26%. The Ld.TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹6,63,78,224/- for SDR segment. 3. On receipt of the Transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/02/2015 incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment aggregating ₹.21,43,81,331/-. The Page

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

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)

assessee’s margin at 2.26%. The Ld.TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹6,63,78,224/- for SDR segment. 3. On receipt of the Transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/02/2015 incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment aggregating ₹.21,43,81,331/-. The Page