“international transaction”

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

proceedings referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on 03.09.2019 to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions entered by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO vide his order u/s 92CA(3) of the I.T.Act dated 25.01.2021 suggested ... transfer of same or similar property by the Appellant, in a comparable uncontrolled transaction on direct and indirect costs of production in an international transaction, thereby clearly mandating that comparison has to be made only when Appellant distributes its products in the domestic market at the same level at which

Ametek Instruments India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

I.T.Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had undertaken the following international transactions with its AEs:- International transaction Value (Rs.) Income from software development / 30,69,58,491 engineering design services Trade Receivables 8,21,35,544 Trade payables ... Rules, the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions should be adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. It is not the case

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

consideration from the appeal (a) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of Rs. 1,86,14,568/- made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) towards the international transaction of provision of software IT(TP)A No.260/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 30 development services (SWD services) to the Assessee’s Associated Enterprises (AE) – Ground ... software development and related support services to its AE. In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing SWD Services were “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale

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

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

response to which the representatives of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. 2.3 As assessee was involved in international transactions, reference was made u/s. 92CA to the Ld.TPO. The Ld.TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment to the ALP of assessee to the extent of Rs.264

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

return of income was picked up for scrutiny. During the course of the assessment, the AO made a reference of international transactions entered into by the Assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer ("the TPO") for determining the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of such transactions under section 92CA ... vide his order dated 31.10.2011 accept Assessee’s adoption of CUP as MAM and also accepted that price paid in the international transaction to the AE is at Arm’s Length. In AY 2009-10 in ITA(TP)A.No.74/Bang/2014 order dated 6.7.2018 the Tribunal upheld order

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.

approach of conducting a fresh comparability analysis and application of certain arbitrary filters in determining the arm's length in connection with the international transactions and holding that the Appellant's international transactions are not at arm's length; 4.6. Upholding the Ld. TPO's approach of issuing the final ... profit & loss account, assessee debited sum of Rs. 4,74,60,301/- under head “Advertisement & Sales Promotion”. It also noted that the assessee had international transaction with its associated enterprises in respect of purchase of capital goods, purchase of traded goods. A reference was accordingly made to the transfer pricing

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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

well as to its Associated Enterprises [AEs]. 3. In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing SWD Services were “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease ... provided to any one or more of such enterprises. In terms of Sec.92(1) of the Act, any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price. 4. As per the Transfer Pricing [TP] documentation, the assessee has entered into following international

M/S. Krishna E Campus Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] to determine the arm’s length price [ALP] in respect of the international transaction. No adjustment was determined by the TPO u/s. 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 5. The AO called for various details with

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

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

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

wholly owned holding company were Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). 3. In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing SWD Services is “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale ... provided to any one or more of such enterprises. In terms of Sec.92(1) of the Act, the any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price. In this appeal by the Assessee, the dispute is with regard to determination

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

return was picked up for scrutiny, assessment proceedings. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO made reference of international transactions entered by the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer, for determining the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of such transactions, under section 92CA of the Act. The assessee ... perused the above submissions by the Ld.AR. 2.16 We note that, the Ld.TPO considered both AE and non-AE transaction together for benchmarking the international transaction, and therefore respectfully following the observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs. J.P. Morgan Services India (P.) Ltd. (supra

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

return was picked up for scrutiny, assessment proceedings. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO made reference of international transactions entered by the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer, for determining the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of such transactions, under section 92CA of the Act. The assessee ... perused the above submissions by the Ld.AR. 2.16 We note that, the Ld.TPO considered both AE and non-AE transaction together for benchmarking the international transaction, and therefore respectfully following the observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs. J.P. Morgan Services India (P.) Ltd. (supra

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 38,75,40,000/- to the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the Appellant's international transactions IT(TP)A No.188/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 9 with its Associated Enterprises (AEs') u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned ... penalty can be levied on such contentious adjustments.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 17 are with regard to determination of ALP of an international transaction between the assessee and its Associate Enterprises (AE) u/s 92 of the Act and also with regard to incorrect application of residual

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(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. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

dated 106) March, 2016 (382 ITR (St.) 36). 1.2. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in holding that the international transaction "guarantee" falls under Transfer Pricing Risk Parameter and such finding is given without bringing any material on record. 1.3. That the order ... Scrutiny. 1.5. That the finding of the learned lower authorities that the reason for selection of case for scrutiny is "Large value of international transactions in the nature of guarantee" reported in Sl. No. 15 of Form 3CEB is perverse since Form 3CEB does not show such large value

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

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

down u/s. 92 of the Act. In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing services by HIBV to Assessee was “international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale ... Audit committee, executive board,-” 5. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of ALP of the international transaction u/s.92CA of the Act. On such a reference to the AO on the question of determination

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

Promotional (“AMP”) expenses 2. The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in considering the AMP expenses of the Appellant as an international transaction even though these expenses were paid to unrelated parties and thereby proposing an adjustment of INR 61,17,77,592. In doing so, the Learned ... promotion (AMP) in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee did not consider the incurring of AMP as an international transaction and did not file any transfer pricing analysis bench marking the AMP expenses. The Transfer Pricing Officer IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Page

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

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 219/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade The Deputy Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, High Income Tax, Grounds Sampangi Rama Circle-2 (1)(1), Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed By The Ld.Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Essilor India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Eipl" Or The "Company" Or The "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

incurred by the Appellant during the FY 2015-16, towards value added functions under the AMP activity, and treating it as a separate international transaction. 3. The learned AO/ TPO/ DRP has erred in not appreciating that there are no machinery provisions in the Act to make adjustment in relation ... were issued and served on the assessee company as there is change in incumbency. 2.2 During the F.Y. 2015-16, the assessee company had international transactions as per Section 92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was referred

M/S. L G Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Dispute Resolution Panel (`Hon'ble DRP') grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 19,64,72,927/- with respect to the international transaction rendered by the tax payer u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting ... fall within the same domain of software development. Accordingly, Mind Tree Ltd. was included in the list of comparables while determining the ALP of international transactions with A.Es. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

I.T.Act was issued on 08.08.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had undertaken international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) exceeding Rs.15 crore, therefore, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price ... said international transaction. The TPO vide order dated 29.01.2016 determined the adjustment u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act at Rs.53,41,875 towards corporate guarantee commission. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed on 01.10.2009 incorporating the above mentioned TP adjustment. Further, the A.O. had made several

M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

I.T.Act was issued on 08.08.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had undertaken international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) exceeding Rs.15 crore, therefore, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price ... said international transaction. The TPO vide order dated 29.01.2016 determined the adjustment u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act at Rs.53,41,875 towards corporate guarantee commission. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed on 01.10.2009 incorporating the above mentioned TP adjustment. Further, the A.O. had made several