“comparable companies”

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

companies operating as full-fledged entrepreneurs without considering the differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies. Page 8 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 9. Erroneous data used by the ACIT / TPO 9.1 The learned ACIT ... learned ACIT/ TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple- year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of the learned ACIT/ TPO. 10. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

companies operating as full-fledged entrepreneurs without considering the differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies. Page 8 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 9. Erroneous data used by the ACIT / TPO 9.1 The learned ACIT ... learned ACIT/ TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple- year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of the learned ACIT/ TPO. 10. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies

M/S. Prism Networks Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

Bench: Us Cannot Be The Basis To Hold That High Turnover Is Not Relevant Criteria For Deciding On Comparability Of Companies In Determination Of Alp Under The Transfer Pricing Regulations Under The Act. For The Reasons Given Above, We Uphold The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Issue Of Application Of Turnover Filter & His Action In Excluding Companies By Following The Ratio Laid Down In The Case Of Genisys Integrating (Supra).

Grd.No.6 raised by the Assessee whose turnover in the current year is more than Rs.200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. 15. Apart from the exclusion of the comparable companies, the Assessee has also pleaded for inclusion of certain companies. The Assessee has raised ground ... comparables in the TP study. The Ld. TPO ought to have considered the availability of data and ought to have selected these companies as Comparable Companies. Sankhva Infotech Ltd. i. Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd ii. IT(TP)A No.349/Bang/2021 Page 14 of 16 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. iii. Insummation Technologies

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

Adjustments towards capacity utilization and project expenses. (v) Ground 13 – Restricting the adjustment to international transactions. (vi) Ground No.14 – Two companies wrongly included as comparable companies. (vii) Ground No.15 – depreciation on assets acquired on slump sale. (viii) Ground No.16 – Interest u/s 234B – consequential. Additional Grounds (ix) Ground No.14A – Application

M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Ramanagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

Adjustments towards capacity utilization and project expenses. (v) Ground 13 – Restricting the adjustment to international transactions. (vi) Ground No.14 – Two companies wrongly included as comparable companies. (vii) Ground No.15 – depreciation on assets acquired on slump sale. (viii) Ground No.16 – Interest u/s 234B – consequential. Additional Grounds (ix) Ground No.14A – Application

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Export earnings less than 75%" and thereby rejecting the company IDBI Intech Ltd from the set of comparable companies. 5. Erred in applying an inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Different financial year end" to determine the final comparable companies and thereby ... rejecting "Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited" from the set of comparable companies. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating certain grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant and inadvertently stating in his order that the same have not been pressed by the Appellant. 7. Erred in rejecting functionally

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Export earnings less than 75%" and thereby rejecting the company IDBI Intech Ltd from the set of comparable companies. 5. Erred in applying an inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Different financial year end" to determine the final comparable companies and thereby ... rejecting "Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited" from the set of comparable companies. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating certain grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant and inadvertently stating in his order that the same have not been pressed by the Appellant. 7. Erred in rejecting functionally

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Export earnings less than 75%" and thereby rejecting the company IDBI Intech Ltd from the set of comparable companies. 5. Erred in applying an inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Different financial year end" to determine the final comparable companies and thereby ... rejecting "Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited" from the set of comparable companies. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating certain grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant and inadvertently stating in his order that the same have not been pressed by the Appellant. 7. Erred in rejecting functionally

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Export earnings less than 75%" and thereby rejecting the company IDBI Intech Ltd from the set of comparable companies. 5. Erred in applying an inappropriate rejection criteria of rejecting companies having "Different financial year end" to determine the final comparable companies and thereby ... rejecting "Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited" from the set of comparable companies. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating certain grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant and inadvertently stating in his order that the same have not been pressed by the Appellant. 7. Erred in rejecting functionally

Transitions Optical Distribution Pvt Ltd (Erswhile Transitions Optical India Pvt Ltd, Since Merged), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

were concluded to be at arm's length. 7. The Ld. TPO compared the 'AMP' expenses to sales ratio of the assessee against the comparable companies' AMP expenses to sales ratio IT(TP)A No.1697/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 5 using the Bright Line Test ('BLT') Method. Based on such comparison

M/S. Capital One Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.306/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

144C(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No.2 The Ld. TPO and Hon’ble DRP has erred by rejecting the following comparable companies on the grounds that such companies are not available in the search conducted by the Ld. TPO, even though they were available in the search ... assessee is seeking that the TPO may be directed to follow the direction given by Ld DRP to include M/s Microland Ltd (Seg.) as comparable company. IT(TP)A No.306/Bang/2021 M/s. Capital One Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 4 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee

Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Core Objects India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

March March 31, 2011) 31, 2011. 7. The Filters applied by the TPO for the purpose of inclusion and exclusion of comparable companies was as follows: Step Description 1. Companies whose data is not available for FY 2010-11 – excluded 2. Companies whose software development income < Rs. 1 Cr – excluded ... appeal, with regard to working capital adjustment. Ground No.11 with regard to exclusion of certain comparables. Ground No12 with regard to inclusion of certain comparable companies. The assessee has filed 3 applications for admission of additional grounds 15 to 18. As far as ground No.15 is concerned, it seeks exclusion

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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 15 % by the Assessee in its TP study. The operating income ... referred to by the AO, accepted TNMM as the MAM and also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/OC. 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

M/S First American (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(3), Bangalore

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

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

determining ALP under section 92 of the Act. The PLI chosen for the purpose of comparison of the assessee’s margin with comparable companies was OP/OC. Net margin on cost earned by Assessee (as reflected in the TP Order): Operating Income Rs. 29,64,92,641/- Operating Expenses ... computing the ALP of the above international transaction. 14. On giving effect to the order passed by the CIT(A), the final list of comparable companies and their respective margins, are as follows: IT(TP)A No.43/Bang/2014 Page 8 of 23 Sl. Mark-up on Total Costs Name

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

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

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

determining ALP under section 92 of the Act. The PLI chosen for the purpose of comparison of the assessee’s margin with comparable companies was OP/OC. Net margin on cost earned by Assessee (as reflected in the TP Order): Operating Income Rs. 29,64,92,641/- Operating Expenses ... computing the ALP of the above international transaction. 14. On giving effect to the order passed by the CIT(A), the final list of comparable companies and their respective margins, are as follows: IT(TP)A No.43/Bang/2014 Page 8 of 23 Sl. Mark-up on Total Costs Name

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

failed to follow the directions provided by the learned Panel and erred in: a) Issuing notice for Rectification under section 154 to reject a comparable company, which is otherwise accepted by the learned Panel, on the ground that it does not clear Page ... Assessment Proceedings b) Not considering corrected operating profit mark-up and working capital adjustment for computing the average operating profit mark-up earned by comparable companies, and thereby erred in computing the transfer pricing adjustment 16. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/TPO

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

failed to follow the directions provided by the learned Panel and erred in: a) Issuing notice for Rectification under section 154 to reject a comparable company, which is otherwise accepted by the learned Panel, on the ground that it does not clear Page ... Assessment Proceedings b) Not considering corrected operating profit mark-up and working capital adjustment for computing the average operating profit mark-up earned by comparable companies, and thereby erred in computing the transfer pricing adjustment 16. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/TPO

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As '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'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

applying upper turnover filter as a comparability criterion: 5. The learned AO/ TPO erred, in law and in facts. by rejecting the following comparable companies identified by the Appellant for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were ... arrived at by taking the average of three-year data. As the assessee’s net margin of 17.89% was higher than the margin of comparable companies, the margin of the assessee was concluded to be at arm’s length. Sl. Particulars Margin (%) No. Caliber Point Business Solutions Limited