“advance pricing agreement”

Transfer PricingSection 92CCSection 92CC125 judgments

Judgments citing advance pricing agreement

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

fixing activities, SEZ tax forms, organization structure and the certificate of activities conducted by the assessee was provided. He further referred to the advance pricing agreement entered into by the assessee for financial year 2015-16 to 2019-20, wherein also the assessee is classified as provider of software development

Concentrix Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2906/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)

filed has been enclosed as Annexure I). In this regard, the Appellant would like to submit that it has entered into a Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement ('UAPA") with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT") on 22 March 2022 (Copy of the agreement has been enclosed as Annexure

M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

with AXA Tech with effect from 1st April 2012 and the merged entity AXA Technologies Shared Services Private Ltd., has entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT commencing from the previous year 2013-14 to previous year 2017-18 (relevant ... determining the ALP of management fees at Nil is contrary to the stand of the department itself while agreeing to the advance pricing agreement. We find in the Advance Pricing Agreement dt.28.3.2016, the department has accepted the international transactions recorded in Clause 3 at arm's length as under

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

force w.e.f. Assessment Year 2002-2003 and have seen a number of amendments over the years, including the insertion of Safe Harbour and Advance Pricing Agreement provisions and the extension of the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to Specified Domestic Transactions. 2. In terms of the provisions, any income arising

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3279/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

agreement with the CBDT for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- “4.2 Considering the Advance Pricing Agreement dated 28.3.2016 and the observations of the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore directing the TPO/AO to reconsider the same in terms of the above observations ... with AXA Tech with effect from 1st April 2012 and the merged entity AXA Technologies Shared Services Private Ltd., has entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT commencing from the previous year 2013-14 to previous year 2017-18 (relevant

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 555/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

M/S. Intgreon Managed Solutions (India)P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Cy /CIT/Asstt./ITO-National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1023/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 147Section 234B

adjustment of Rs.20.60 crores made in respect of Provision of back office support services to the Associated Enterprises has since been settled under Advance Pricing Agreement Procedure. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessee, vide its letter dated 10th May, 2022 has withdrawn ground no.3. Accordingly, we dismiss grounds No.1

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

force w.e.f. Assessment Year 2002-2003 and have seen a number of amendments over the years, including the insertion of Safe Harbour and Advance Pricing Agreement provisions and the extension of the applicability of transferpricingprovisions to Specified Domestic Transactions. 2. In terms of the provisions, any income arising from

Dy CIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jefferies India P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.457/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cir 4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Jefferies India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.649, 6Th Floor, 42 & 43, 2 North Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400051. & Cross Objection No.151/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 457/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Jefferies India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cir 4(3)(1) Room No.649, 6Th Floor, 42 & 43, 2 North Avenue, Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj7850R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma Assessee By: Shri M.P. Lohia/Nikhil Tiwari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 05.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15. C.O. No.151/Mum/2021 A.Y.2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia/Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

audited by a Chartered Accountant on a half yearly basis. It’s also a fact that the appellant has entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the Central Board of Direct Taxes for its transactions with Associate enterprises and this year is one of the rollback year ... books of account and financial result of appellant have already been examined and accepted during the finalizing of the terms of the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA). The appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of a 5 C.O. No.151/Mum/2021 A.Y.2014-15 US entity and its books of accounts are duly audited

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92BSection 92B(1)Section 92C

income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price. 3. A bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) was entered into between the CBDT and the assessee on 30/08/2018 and the APA is applicable for five years commencing from financial year ... without having regard to the modified return of income filed by the assessee on 29 October 2018 pursuant to the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) signed on 30th August 2018 (ii) The learned AO/TPO/DRP have erred in law and in facts by not considering interest on delayed receivables as a covered

M/S. Infinera India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2589/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 80G

transfer pricing adjustment in accordance with Rule 10RA of the I.T. Rules. The reason given is that it had entered into bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) for assessment years 2016-17 to 2020-21 with roll back option for 2 years covering assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Accordingly

Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Laboratories Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No. 196/Del/2013 for Asst Year 2008-09 dated 25.04.2016 , wherein the Delhi Tribunal had relied on the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered into by that assessee u/s 92CC of the Act on 7.8.2015 with CBDT for Asst Year 2014-15. In the said

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 289/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

NeAC and Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts in not taking cognizance of the submissions by the Appellant that in the Advance Pricing Agreement entered into by the Appellant and the CBDT, ESOP expense has been considered as Operating cost. The NeAC and the Hon'ble DRP have erred

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1700/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12 Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 4Th Floor, Dhaka House, Circle-8(2), 18/17, Wea, Pusa Lane, Cr Building, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaace0138N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Sumisha Murgai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3), Dated 29.01.2016, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of The Appeal On The Ground That The Assessee Has Entered Into A Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement With The Cbdt On 4Th December, 2019 In Respect Of The International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee. The Subject International Transaction Which Is Currently Under Dispute Includes Receipt Of Second Line Support Services By The Assessee From Its Aes. She Accordingly Submitted That The Assessee Wants To Withdraw The Appeal. In Absence Of Any Objection From The Side Of The Ld. Dr, The Request Of The Assessee Seeking Permission Of The Bench For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Is Allowed & The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed As ‘Withdrawn.’

For Appellant: Ms Sumisha Murgai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR

Section 144C

Counsel for the assessee filed an application seeking withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee has entered into a unilateral advance pricing agreement with the CBDT on 4th December, 2019 in respect of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The subject international transaction which is currently

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

ITA 43/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

short). IT(TP)A No.43/Bang/2014 Page 3 of 23 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee entered into a unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (‘APA’ for short) dated 28.03.2016 in respect of the international transactions of provision of SWD and ITE services to its AE, FATICO, for the period

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

ITA 2586/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Timken Engineering & Research India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 694/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

segments mentioned above, the assessee submitted as under:- “The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT on 29.3.2019 for settling Transfer pricing issues for assessment years 2016-17 to 2020-21 with a provision for roll- back of APA to three ... development segment and marketing support services segment. The assessee has also filed an additional ground contending that the net margin rate determined under advanced pricing agreement for assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 should be adopted to the year under consideration also. 3. We heard the parties

M/S Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

ITA 508/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

method to determine arm's length commission rate for indenting transactions with the AEs (other than those which are covered by the Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement with Japan). While doing so, the Ld. DRP / TPO disregarded: 6.1 the difference in the functions performed, risks assumed, number of transactions, value ... average rate of commission could not be adopted as arm's length; and 6.4 the transfer pricing approach agreed upon in the Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement ("BAPA") signed between the Appellant and the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT"), where TNMM has been selected as the most appropriate method with

Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

ITA 507/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 92CSection 92C(3)