“working capital adjustment”

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench, we hold that the company be included for AY 2017-18 in assessee’s case. Working capital adjustment 28. The TPO did not give working capital adjustment to the assessee. The DRP while upholding the decision of TPO, held that ... demonstrated with any data or information there exists a IT(TP)A No.292/Bang/2022 Page 27 of 42 difference in price because of the working capital adjustment. The ld AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Huawei Technologies India

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

comparables on a level playing fields; d. Not providing adjustment for abnormal expenditure incurred due to Thai Floods; and Not providing working capital adjustment e. Not providing working capital adjustment. 6. The lower income tax authorities have erred in: a. Not considering Cash Profit Level Indicator (`PLI') in the case ... nature and excluded from the operating cost. The comparables did not incur similar costs as they do not have higher import component. Working Capital Adjustment 2.22 The Appellant in its submissions before TPO provided working capital adjustment computation and requested the TPO to grant such adjustment

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

facts in not allowing appropriate adjustments under Rule 10B to account for, inter alia, differences in (i) accounting practice; (ii) positive working capital adjustment; (iii) risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5.2 The Appellant craves for consequential relief of interest under section 234B & 234C under ... facts in not allowing appropriate adjustments under Rule 10B to account for, inter alia, differences in (i) accounting practice; (ii) positive working capital adjustment; (iii) risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies.” 35.1 At the time of hearing, Ld. A.R. argued only with regard to granting of working

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

extending credit period with mutual consent and it does not provide any interest clause in case of delay. She argued that, the working capital adjustment takes into account the factors related to delayed receivables and therefore no separate adjustment is required in such circumstances. 9.5 On the contrary Ld.CIT.DR submitted ... distinguishable and thus, we reject argument advanced by Ld.AR. Page 41 IT(TP)A No. 209/Bang/2021 9.10 Alternatively, it has been argued that working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loan and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

assume these risks and therefore have to be credited with a risk premium on this account; and Hon'ble Not appropriately computing the working capital adjustment while computing the ALP. 6.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the impugned TP adjustment should be deleted fully. Grounds ... profit operating margin to operating cost of the comparable was computed at 23.80% and downward adjustment of 3% was made towards the working capital adjustment. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.TPO determined the ALP of international transaction under software development service segment rendered by assessee at Rs.16

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

margins for R.S.Software (India) Ltd., for FY 2014-15 & 2015- 16) inclusion of one comparable company Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., besides grounds on working capital adjustment. 3. The Assessee in engaged in the business of provision of Software Development Services (SWD services), to its wholly owned holding company. In terms ... Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd. 62.90% 68.68% 68.82% 66.45% 35th Percentile 18.50% Median 25.64% 65th Percentile 30.89% 5. The TPO did not give working capital adjustment to the margin of the comparable companies as claimed by the Assessee. TPO computed the Addition to total income on account of adjustment

Finastra Software Solutions (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. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective customers. Further Ld.AR submitted that working capital adjustment undertaken by assessee includes the adjustment regarding the receivables and thus receivables arising out of such transaction have already been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that ... extending credit period with mutual consent and it does not provide any interest clause in case of delay. He also argued that the working capital adjustment takes into account the factors related to delayed receivables and no separate adjustment is required in such circumstances. 23.4. On the contrary Ld.CIT.DR submitted

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

Cyber Media (India) Ltd; and b. Just Dial Ltd; (iii) Adopting incorrect margins of the comparables for computing ALP; and (iv) Not granting working capital adjustment for the marketing support segment. IT(TP)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Page 3 GROUNDS RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT IN MANUFACTURING SEGMENT 6. The learned ... adopting the following companies as a comparable: a) Lumax Automotive Systems Ltd; and b) Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd. (iii) Not granting working capital adjustment for the manufacturing segment. GROUNDS RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT IN TRADING SEGMENT 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), 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.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

directions Ground No.9 – Arithmetical error in computing operating margin of assessee. Ground No.18 – Turnover filter. Ground No.19 – Exclusion of comparables. Ground No.20 – Working capital adjustment. Ground No.21 to 27 – Rate of corporate guarantee fee. Ground No.28 to 33 – Interest on outstanding receivables. 5 IT(TP)A No.322/Bang/2022 M/s.Trianz Holdings Private

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

recovered from employees and reimbursed to the AE; Ground No. 17: The learned TPO erred in law and facts by not allowing working capital adjustments in order to account for material differences in working capital existing between the Assessee and the set of comparable companies, in spite of the fact ... operating in nature. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. 16. Ground No.17 is in respect of non-granting of working capital adjustment. We note that this issue is no longer res integra, as the Tribunal has been consistently granting working capital adjustment to the assessee while computing

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.

working capital differential existing between the Appellant vis-a-vis independent comparable companies.” 8.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee claimed working capital adjustment while computing the net profit margin, which constitutes difference if any, between the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions ... uncontrolled comparable transaction to eliminate the material effects of differences on the price, cost or profits. The assessee has argued for working capital adjustment contending that there exist differences in the payable and receivable position between the assessee and the comparables. However, it was not demonstrated with any data

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 12Th & 13Th Floor, Commissioner Of Peridot Block, Bagmane Income Tax, World Technology Centre Circle 3(1)(1), Sez, Vs. Bangalore. Marthalli Road, Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aafcg8223M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 21/02/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

transaction of provision of services and hence have been aggregated for determination of ALP under TNMM; c) Not appreciating the fact that the working capital adjustments undertaken take into account the impact of outstanding receivables of the controlled transactions vis-à-vis the uncontrolled transactions in determining ... TNMM as the most appropriate method and computed its margin that was within the range of the adjusted PLI (OP/OC) (i.e. after undertaking working capital adjustment to adjust for differences in receivables and payables) of the comparables selected by the Assessee in its TP study report. Accordingly, the transaction