“working capital adjustment”

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Panel and the learned AO erred in not providing working capital adjustment for determining the arm's length price while relying on the judicial precedents based on a fact pattern, which is not applicable to the Appellant ... comparable to the assessee. 8. Ground No. 3: Notional interest on delayed receivables computed by the Ld.TPO. 9. Ground No.4: Non-grant of working capital adjustment: 10. Before we undertake the comparibility analysis, it is sine qua non to understand the functions performed, assets owned and risks assumed. Functions

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

time of hearing. 23. The learned TPO I AO have erred, in law and in facts, by incorrectly computing the working capital adjustment benefit. 24. The learned AO I TPO I CIT(A) have erred, in law and facts, by not making suitable adjustments to account for differences

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

Killick Agencies and Marketing Limited). 14. That the Assessing Officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer has erred in upholding the error in computation of working capital adjustment and in limiting the working capital adjustment for engineering design services segment and marketing support services segment while determining the arm's length price ... submitted that the margins computed by the TPO is wrong that deserves to be corrected. In Ground no. 14, assessee is seeking working capital adjustment for marketing support service segment and engineering design service segment on actuals. 13. As the Ground nos. 1-9 have been withdrawn by the assessee

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

assessee with regard to TP adjustment, ground No.3.5 pertains to applying / modifying of certain filters and ground no 3.14 relating to working capital adjustment. The ld AR during the course of hearing presented arguments relating to TPO not applying the correct filter for turnover while modifying the filters applied ... assessee for selecting comparables and the working capital adjustment and prayed that these issues can be taken up for adjudication leaving the rest of the grounds relating to TP adjustments open. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee operates as a global offshore service entre for the Atos group

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")

with the Learned AO in pursuance of the directions of the Learned Panel erred in law and on facts in not providing the Working Capital Adjustment to the Appellant. 6. The Learned TPO along with the Learned AO in pursuance of the directions of the Learned Panel erred ... between the assessee and the companies selected as comparables. He submitted that in view of the following judgements, the assessee is entitled for working capital adjustment and prayed that the same may be granted:- 1. Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2012-13) IT(TP) No.1939/Bang/2017 2. IKA India

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

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. Page ... foreign AE., hence it is an international transaction as per explanation to section 92 B of the Act. It has been argued that, working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and lone and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation

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

incurred by the Appellant. 1.23. The Honorable DRP, learned AO and TPO have erred in not granting appropriate favourable economic adjustments (including the working capital adjustment) when assessing the arm's length nature of alleged international transaction of provision of AMP services. 1.24. The Honorable DRP have erred

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

learned AO / learned TPO erred in not following the directions of the DRP and erred in not giving the relief for allowing working capital adjustment. 22.6 The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the directions of the DRP and ignoring the limited risk nature ... learned AO / learned TPO erred in not following the directions of the DRP and erred in not giving the relief for allowing working capital adjustment. 24. Warranty Cost 24.1 The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not following the directions given

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

ground of appeal 4.15 above, the learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred. In law and in facts, by not considering that once the working capital adjustment is granted, it appropriately takes into account the delayed/ outstanding receivable and separate TP Adjustment is unwarranted. 4.19 Without prejudice to our ground of appeal ... receivables outstanding from the AE. He thus vehemently argued that no separate adjustment in respect of delayed receivables is required when Working Capital Adjustment is granted when margins of the international transactions are to be computed. Page 9 of 14 IT(TP)A No. 2570/Bang/2019 We note that the Ld.TPO

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(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.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 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 22.11.2016 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 Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

India Private Limited. 9.5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in making negative working capital adjustment and not granting other economic / risk adjustments.” We shall adjudicate the above grounds / issues as under: Ground 6 to 8 (Interest on receivables ... ordered accordingly. 24. In views of the above, ground 9 and its sub-grounds are partly allowed as indicated above. Negative Working Capital Adjustment (Ground 9.5) 25. It was submitted that the assessee is a captive service provider, which is entirely funded by the AE and it does not have

M/S. Lancesoft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 273/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Lancesoft India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 7/1, Manohar Plaza, Commissioner Of Kundalhalli Gate, Income Tax, Brookfields, Itpl Circle – 4(1)(1), Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacl9790K Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Smt. R. Rashmi, Advocates : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Dated 30/04/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To Each Other Wrong Characterization 1. The Learned Tpo Erred In Characterizing The Services Rendered By The Appellant Erroneously As Ites Whereas The Appellant Renders Staff Recruitment Services, Which Has Vitiated The Comparability Analysis;

Learned TPO has committed mistakes in computation of margin and has failed to follow the directions of the DRP in this regard; Working Capital adjustment 9. The Learned TPO/ DRP erred in not allowing the working capital adjustment, at actuals, as upheld by the judicial authorities;” Page

M/S. Meritor C vs. India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Details of company wise objections included in the Annexure A. xii) not appreciating the fact that, the DRP has issued directions that, no working capital adjustment be allowed and the justification for such directions are improper and not tenable under law. IT(TP)A No.249/Bang/2021 M/s. Meritor CVS India ... inter-related which are reproduced as under:- 1(xii) not appreciating the fact that, the DRP has issued directions that, no working capital adjustment be allowed and the justification for such directions are improper and not tenable under law. 1(xiii) making an adjustment to the extent of Rs.14

M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature. 5. Ground nos. 5 & 6 are not pressed. 6. Ground no. 7 – Assessee is seeking working capital adjustment in this ground. 7. Ground nos. 8-10 are general in nature and therefore not pressed. 8. Ground no. 10 entirely is not pressed ... granting to WCA while computing the margines of the comparables. 20.1 At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR pressed for providing working capital adjustment. Identical issue was considerd by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Huawei Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT reported in [2019] 101 taxmann.com

Lg Soft India Private 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

exclude this company from the list of comparables. Ground No.17:- 9. Facts of the case are that the TPO did not allow any working capital adjustment and the Ld. DRP also confirmed the order of the TPO. 9.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available ... effect of any such differences. These are called "comparability adjustments. 13. In Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid OECD guidelines, need for working capital adjustment has been explained as follows: "13. In a competitive environment, money has a time value. If a company provided, say, 60 days trade terms

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The 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 & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

allow ground 2.7 for statistical purposes. 13 IT(TP)A No.231/Bang/2021. M/s.Airlinq Technology Private Limited. Ground 2.8 20. Ground 2.8 is dealing with working capital adjustment. The assessee has submitted that TPO did not allow any adjustment on working capital. Further, the DRP did not allow relief on this count ... Tribunal in the case of M/s.Huawei Technologies India (P) Ltd. (supra) read as follows:- “15. In the present case the TPO allowed working capital adjustment accepting the calculation given by the Assessee. The CIT (A) in exercise of his powers of enhancement held that no adjustment should be made

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

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

respect of foreign exchange fluctuation being considered as operating in nature. 8. In Ground nos. 7 – 9 assessee is seeking Working Capital Adjustment is to be granted to assessee in respect of deferred receivables. We therefore restrict to the adjudication of Ground nos. 1, 2 (partly), 6-9 only ... analysis. Accordingly Ground no. 2 raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground nos. 7-9 is in respect of Working Capital Adjustment. 14.1 The Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables at the rate equal to 5.975% on receivables that exceeded 90 days as per the directions

Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy 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

No.477/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 20 • Turnover Filter - Ground No. 2.5 • Exclusion of Companies - Ground No. 2.8 • Inclusion of Companies - Ground No. 2.9 & 2.10 • Working Capital Adjustment - Ground No. 2.13 • Interest on Receivables - Ground No. 3.1 to 3.7 • Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill - Ground No. 4.1 to 4.8 3. The assessee ... Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OR 10,82,70,493 9. The TPO while arriving at the above TP adjustment did not consider the working capital adjustment. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP contending that the turnover filter should have an upper limit and the same