“comparable companies”

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

erred in confirming the same. Ground No. 6: The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred by rejecting the following 7 comparable companies in the software development segment selected/accepted by the Assessee on unjustifiable grounds even though sufficient data was available, and they were functionally comparable to the Assessee ... directions of the Hon'ble DRP by including R Systems International Limited which has been rejected by the Hon'ble DRP as a comparable company to the Assessee. Ground No. 9: The learned TPO erred on facts by not making changes in arithmetical errors/inaccurate computation in computing NCP of comparable

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

public databases. 1.5. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in applying different financial year ending filter while selecting the comparable companies thereby not considering the fact that the relevant data for the concerned financial year could be deduced from the corresponding financials. 1.6. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon ... erred in applying export earning filter of 75% of the total sales, leading to a narrower set of comparable companies. 1.7. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in law and facts by not applying the upper limit for the sales turnover filter. The learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Indicator ('PLI') used for the distribution activity, which is tested under the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM'): the arm's length benchmarking and the comparable companies so adopted are not disputed by the learned TPO: 5. The learned DRP has erred, in facts, by concluding that the commission paid ... Ld.AR submitted that, the revenue made adverse observation that assessee incurred excessive sales and distribution expenses and compared to the comparable companies by using CUP as the most appropriate method. He submitted that the revenue has attributed excessive sales and distribution expenditure to the additional function of promoting and developing

Alcon Laboratories (India0 Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Indicator ('PLI') used for the distribution activity, which is tested under the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM'): the arm's length benchmarking and the comparable companies so adopted are not disputed by the learned TPO: 5. The learned DRP has erred, in facts, by concluding that the commission paid ... Ld.AR submitted that, the revenue made adverse observation that assessee incurred excessive sales and distribution expenses and compared to the comparable companies by using CUP as the most appropriate method. He submitted that the revenue has attributed excessive sales and distribution expenditure to the additional function of promoting and developing

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

India (P.) Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal considered the comparability of the 3 companies which the Assessee seeks to exclude from the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. The functional profile of me Assessee and that of the Assessee in the case of Agilis Information Technologies India ... supra), is identical inasmuch as the said company was also involved in providing SWD services to its AE and the TPO had chosen some comparable companies which were also chosen by the TPO in the case of the Assessee for the purpose of comparability. In the aforesaid decision the Tribunal

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

India (P.) Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal considered the comparability of the 3 companies which the Assessee seeks to exclude from the final list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO. The functional profile of me Assessee and that of the Assessee in the case of Agilis Information Technologies India ... supra), is identical inasmuch as the said company was also involved in providing SWD services to its AE and the TPO had chosen some comparable companies which were also chosen by the TPO in the case of the Assessee for the purpose of comparability. In the aforesaid decision the Tribunal

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

adjudicate on the grounds raised by the Appellant with respect to the adhoc adjustments proposed by the Ld. TPO in relation to the comparable companies for the impugned IT enabled services ('ITeS') and warranty charges. 2. Erroneous bifurcation of marketing and business support services into Marketing support services and ITeS ... fresh benchmarking analysis conducted by the Ld. TPO is liable to be quashed. • The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred on facts in rejecting the comparable companies arrived at in the Transfer Pricing Study without considering the functions, assets and risk analysis of the Appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commisssioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

adjudicate on the grounds raised by the Appellant with respect to the adhoc adjustments proposed by the Ld. TPO in relation to the comparable companies for the impugned IT enabled services ('ITeS') and warranty charges. 2. Erroneous bifurcation of marketing and business support services into Marketing support services and ITeS ... fresh benchmarking analysis conducted by the Ld. TPO is liable to be quashed. • The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred on facts in rejecting the comparable companies arrived at in the Transfer Pricing Study without considering the functions, assets and risk analysis of the Appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

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

prays that the fresh benchmarking analysis conducted by the TPO is liable to be quashed. 2.6 The AO/TPO erred on facts in rejecting the comparable companies arrived at in the Transfer Pricing Study without considering the functional and risk analysis of the Appellant. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding ... operating as full-fledged entrepreneurs without considering the differences in the functions performed, assets employed and risk undertaken by the Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the AO/ TPO. 3. Determination of arm's length price by the TPO in relation

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

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

prays that the fresh benchmarking analysis conducted by the TPO is liable to be quashed. 2.6 The AO/TPO erred on facts in rejecting the comparable companies arrived at in the Transfer Pricing Study without considering the functional and risk analysis of the Appellant. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding ... operating as full-fledged entrepreneurs without considering the differences in the functions performed, assets employed and risk undertaken by the Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the AO/ TPO. 3. Determination of arm's length price by the TPO in relation

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

turnover/service revenue while selecting the companies comparable to the assessee. It was submitted that application of turnover filter is a relevant criterion in choosing comparable companies. It is submitted that, the difference in the scale of operations have a direct impact on the profitability. Further, it is submitted that medium/large ... dated 28-5-2019 passed by the Tribunal referred in the earlier paragraph and held that Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., is also not a comparable company because there were extraordinary events that occurred in the relevant previous year and that it possessed brand and intangibles and there was no segmental

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

several errors in the computation of margins of companies Further, the TPO has also made certain errors in the computation of margins of the comparable companies selected by him. We are in the process of filing a rectification application seeking rectification of these errors which are apparent on records

M/S. Ig Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

AO/TPO/DRP have erred by failing to make appropriate adjustments to accou,n-t4;- differences in working capital employed by the appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies in respect of the subject transaction. 10. The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk ... profile of the appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2022 IG Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 21 11. The learned AO has erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B of the Act.” 2. At the time of hearing, assessee pressed only ground

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

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

assessee wherein the TPO proposed to include United Drilling Tools Ltd. and Groz Engg. Tools Pvt. Ltd. (pg. 541 of PB) as comparable companies. The assessee filed its response raising objections for inclusion of the said two companies (pg. 545 of PB). We also notice that the TPO after considering ... international transaction of the 'Provision of IT Enabled data conversion services'. This can be done by increasing the revenue charged by the comparable companies with the amount of interest for the period between that allowed by them in realization of invoices and 150 days as allowed by the assessee