“comparable companies”

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

comparables the margin of which worked out to 25.59% as given below:- IT(TP)A No.226/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 25 Name of the Comparable Company Sr No. Margins (OP/OC) 1. Kals Information Systems Ltd. (seg) 8.60% 2. E-Zest Solutions Limited 10.87% 3. Rheal Software Private Limited ... Appeal No.18 of 2015 dated 16.9.2015 wherein it was held that high turnover is a ground to exclude a company from the list of comparable companies in determining ALP, held that there were contrary views on the issue and hence the view favourable to the Assessee laid down

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

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")

comparables. 7. The Learned AO while passing the final AO order pursuant to the I)RP directions erroneously computed incorrect margin for various comparable companies in SWD and ITeS segments. 8. The Learned AO in pursuance of the directions of the Learned Panel inadvertently erred in computing the relief Page ... Limited 3. Microland Ltd. (Seg.) 13.62% 2.6 The Ld.TPO after considering the submissions, shortlisted following comparables under both the segment: SWD Segment: Sl. No Comparable Company OP/OC Kals Information 1. 8.60% Systems Ltd. 2. Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd. 14.50% Harbinger Systems Pvt. 3. 15.06% Ltd. CG-VAK Software

M/S Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. 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') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

international transaction. 4. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the previous two years financial data of the comparable companies while determining the ALP. 5. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in using data available at the time of assessment proceedings, instead ... data available at the time of preparing the TP documentation for comparable companies while determining ALP. 6. 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

M/S Praxair India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

group policy. 8. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in relying on the analysis provided by the Appellant to demonstrate the fact that independent comparable companies such as Linde India Ltd who are industrial gas manufacturers and have been in the business for a considerable period of time have made

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 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 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

providing detailed reasons of functional dissimilarity) even though such companies were engaged in the same product! service category as that of the other selected comparable companies. Adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses 14. The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon 'ble DRP erred in making an adjustment towards salary paid, expenses

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

grossly erred in excluding provision for bad and doubtful debts 4 as non-operating in nature, while computing the operating margins of alleged comparable companies. The DRP further erred in upholding the same. h. That the TPO grossly erred in applying the RPT filter by taking the RPT income/total income ... although the said companies are otherwise comparable to the Appellant. 6. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the margins of the comparable companies. a. That the TPO erred in law and on facts in not allowing appropriate adjustments under Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1963 to account

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

transaction relating to distribution was not at ALP. 1.17. IheHonorable DRP, learned AO and TPO have erred in law and on facts in choosing comparable companies without sharing the search strategy, for benchmarking the alleged transaction of rendering AMP services. 1.18. The Honorable DRP, learned AO and TPO have erred ... with transaction of import of computer and computer peripherals. 4. Since the operating margin of the assessee was at 2.5% and the margin of comparable companies was at 2.26%, the international transaction of import of resale of computer and computer peripherals was considered to be at arm’s length. During

Dell India Private Ltd., 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

time to time. 18. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the multiple year prior year financial data of comparable companies while determining the arm's length price. 19. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering provision of doubtful debts ... proceedings, instead of IT(TP)A Nos.400 & 562/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 73 that available as on the date of preparing the TI documentation for comparable companies while determining arm's length price. 21. Business Support Services 21.1 The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in arbitrarily arriving

M/S. Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

operating in nature, thus incorrectly computing the operating margins of the Assessee as 5.12%. 4.4 The learned DRP/ AO/TPO erred in rejecting certain comparable companies by applying the following quantitative and qualitative filters: a) for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies ... Technologies Ltd  Harbinger Systems Pvt Ltd 4.9 The learned DRP/ AO / TPO erred in law and in facts, by accepting the following companies as comparable company though the same cannot be considered as comparable to the Appellant in law and fact on one or more grounds:  Tata Elxsi Ltd  Mindtree