“comparable companies”

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

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

disturbed the margin declared by the assessee and hence he did not carry out comparison of PLI (Profit level indicator) with any comparable company. He submitted that the working capital adjustment is made to the margins of comparable companies only. However, in the instant case, the assessee has given extended ... above said contentions of Ld A.R for the following reasons:- (a) The working capital adjustment is made to the working results of the comparable companies. The reason is that the transaction between the assessee and its AE is risk free and further the price of transaction is determined in advance

Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 8. The learned AO/DRP/TPO have erred in law by conducting a fresh-search for comparable companies and by rejecting the search process carried out by the Appellant, without giving adequate reasons for the rejection of comparables. 9. The learned AO/DRP/TPO erred ... filters applied by the TPO were not correctly applied. 10. The learned AO/DRP/TPO erred in law and on facts by identifying incorrect set of comparable companies. 11. The learned AO/DRP/TPO have erred in law and on facts by 3 IT(TP)A No. 361 & 202/Bang/2016 M/s. Conduent Business Services India

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

manufacturing facility. The assessee in its TP study, has adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee has arrived at set of 2 comparable companies with an average OPM of 2.80% viz-a-viz that of 23.11 % of the assessee. The assessee made various adjustments to arrive ... rejected the comparables set taken by the assessee. The TPO conducted a fresh TP analysis and selected a set of 6 comparable companies and arrived at OPM of comparables at 4.37%. After rejecting the adjustments made by the assessee, the TPO arrived at OPM of the assessee

Asst.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xerox Business Services of India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 8. The learned AO/DRP/TPO have erred in law by conducting a fresh-search for comparable companies and by rejecting the search process carried out by the Appellant, without giving adequate reasons for the rejection of comparables. 9. The learned AO/DRP/TPO erred ... filters applied by the TPO were not correctly applied. 10. The learned AO/DRP/TPO erred in law and on facts by identifying incorrect set of comparable companies. 11. The learned AO/DRP/TPO have erred in law and on facts by 3 IT(TP)A No. 361 & 202/Bang/2016 M/s. Conduent Business Services India

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

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.

pertaining to software development services. 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 erred in undertaking an inconsistent approach of considering gain/ loss on account of foreign ... Appellant and on the other hand, considering the same as operating in nature while computing the operating profit on operating cost of the comparable companies, though the Hon'ble DRP mentioned that a consistent approach is to be undertaken. 6. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in applying different4inancial

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), 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. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements. 7. The learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant for having different accounting year / financial year (i.e. companies having accounting year / financial year other than March 31 or companies ... criterion for Contract R&D services segment. 16. The learned AO I TPO I DRP erred in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using employee cost greater than 25% of turnover as a comparability criterion for contract R&D services segment

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

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

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.

AO/learned Panel erred in rejecting the internal Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") analysis conducted by the Appellant and also proposing a different set of comparable companies for re-computing the arm's length price ("ALP") for the manufacturing activity. [corresponding to Ground 3(a)] 4. That the learned Panel erred ... approach using data as at the time of assessment proceedings, instead of that available as on the date of preparing the TP documentation for comparable companies while determining arm's length price, ignoring the fact that this data was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

operate at its optimum capacity and could not recoup its fixed costs. The assessee is operating at 46.88% of its installed capacity whereas the comparable companies chosen by the assessee operated at an average of Rs.68.43%. The assessee therefore made an adjustment for under utilization of the capacity ... also submitted that as a result of underutilization of capacity the assessee was unable to recoup the fixed cost incurred as compared to the comparable companies thereby affecting the profit margin of the assessee and, therefore, an adjustment to eliminate effect IT(TP)A No.649/Bang/2016 Page

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

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.

AO/learned Panel erred in rejecting the internal Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") analysis conducted by the Appellant and also proposing a different set of comparable companies for re-computing the arm's length price ("ALP") for the manufacturing activity. [corresponding to Ground 3(a)] 4. That the learned Panel erred ... approach using data as at the time of assessment proceedings, instead of that available as on the date of preparing the TP documentation for comparable companies while determining arm's length price, ignoring the fact that this data was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

Assessee chose Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) – as the Most Appropriate Method for comparing Assessee’s profit margin with that of comparable companies. Under this method the comparison is made between the Assessee’s the operating/ net margins with that of comparable companies to analyse if the related party transactions ... reference to cost i.e., Operating profit on Operating Cost was chosen as the profit level Indicator (PLI) for comparing Assessee’s margin with the comparable companies. The TPO to whom a reference was made for determination of ALP in terms of Sec.92CA accepted the PLI chosen for the purpose

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

Ld.TPO observed as under: “(a) the parent company had not charged royalty in past; (b) PLI of the Appellant is lower than the comparable companies, and the Appellant had not demonstrated the following:- (i) how novel the technical know-how is; (ii) the cost of creating the technical know

M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison of the assessee’s profit margin with that of the comparable companies. The OP/OC of the assessee was arrived at 16.78 % by the assessee in its TP study. The operating income ... also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/OC. The TPO reworked the OP/OC of the assessee at 16.19%. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO accepted some companies chosen by the assessee as comparable companies. The TPO on his own identified some other companies as comparable with

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

international transaction. 4. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) 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 CIT(A) erred in disregarding multiple year data and they ought ... 3089/Bang/2018 7. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) has grossly erred in not rejecting the following companies from the list of comparable companies:  L & T Infotech Ltd.  Mindtree Ltd.  Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 8. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

international transaction. 4. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) 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 CIT(A) erred in disregarding multiple year data and they ought ... 3089/Bang/2018 7. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) has grossly erred in not rejecting the following companies from the list of comparable companies:  L & T Infotech Ltd.  Mindtree Ltd.  Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. 8. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit