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Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby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

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

negative working capital at (-)4.44%The Ld. TPO proposed the adjustment at Rs.5,96,75,040/- being the shortfall. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order. In the daft assessment order, he further made following disallowances: Income as per Return of Income Rs.11

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

section 92CA of the Act is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 17: On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.ws 1,53 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 27 March 2015 by invoking section

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

section 92CA of the Act is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 17: On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.ws 1,53 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 27 March 2015 by invoking section

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

separate addition needs to be made. For the year under consideration, the Ld.TPO in para 4.1 has given a categorical finding in the transfer pricing order that, the operating margin earned by the assessee in the trading segment is at arm’s length and no adverse inference

Ids Software Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

transactions. The TPO rejected the contentions of the assessee relating to net operating margins and selection of comparable companies. The TPO passed the transfer pricing order dated 8th January 2013 and determined the arms’ length price as follows: a. The TPO rejected segmental analysis provided by the assessee

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

exchange gain/loss to be operating income. The Ld.TPO proposed the adjustment at Rs.6,01,83,842/- being the shortfall. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order. In the daft assessment order, he further Page 7 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 made

Amicrop Management India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

that markup has to be imputed at 14.72% based on certain comparables selected during the transfer pricing proceedings. 2.6 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment so proposed. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

that markup has to be imputed at 14.72% based on certain comparables selected during the transfer pricing proceedings. 2.6 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment so proposed. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

hearing of the appeal as they may be advised.” 3. Assessee has filed following additional grounds :- “1. The Appellant submits that the Transfer Pricing Order dated 01/11/2016 passed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act is barred by limitation as per section 153 r.w.s. 92CA(3A) of the Act. Hence ... which the period of limitation referred to Section 153 expires'. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transactions. After seeking information as required from time to time & hearing the case, the Addl. CIT- TP-(1)(3), Mumbai has passed the Transfer Pricing Order dated 31st Dec 2013 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. However. as per Explanation to Sec. 92CA, "Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") means a Joint ... persons". As per this Explanation, Addl. CIT Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai is not the TPO & hence is not authorised to pass the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA. 3. The Applicant therefore seeks to raise the following additional preliminary ground of appeal as ground no. 1: "1. Re.: Assessment

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

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." 25. Accordingly we direct the AO/TPO to correctly work out the PLI of the final comparables after

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

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." 25. Accordingly we direct the AO/TPO to correctly work out the PLI of the final comparables after

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

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." 25. Accordingly we direct the AO/TPO to correctly work out the PLI of the final comparables after

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

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

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 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. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

289/Bang/2021 filed by the Appellant in relation to the draft assessment order issued by the learned JAO / transfer pricing order issued by the learned TPO and confirming the draft assessment order. 13. Non grant of credit for entire Tax Deducted at Source (`TDS') 13.1. The NeAC has erred

Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2580/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 274

Order issued by the Assessing Officer, Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel and IT(TP)A No.2580/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 16 the Transfer Pricing Order issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law (a) The Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

Cisco Systems Services B.V, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

have erred, in law and in facts, by wrongly computing the operating margins of some of the comparable companies identified in the transfer pricing order 7. The learned TPO/ learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by not applying a higher threshold while applying the turnover filter

M/S. Randox Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2576/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishna Upadhyaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR-OSD), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92ASection 92CSection 92F

parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. As could be seen from the transfer pricing order as well as the facts materials on record, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is a reseller of finished goods

Cisco Systems Services B V India Branch, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2888/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)
Section 143(3)

learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by erroneously computing the operating margins of certain comparable companies identified in the transfer pricing order. 6. The learned TPO / learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by not applying a higher threshold while applying the turnover filter

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

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. 25. Accordingly we direct the AO / TPO to correctly work out the PL1 of the final comparables

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

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. 25. Accordingly we direct the AO / TPO to correctly work out the PL1 of the final comparables