CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

144C(14) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the following grounds: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant.) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) - Circle

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(5). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. c) Panel and Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in not demonstrating that the motive of the Appellant was to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in the international transaction, which is a pre- requisite condition to make any adjustment under

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

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

TDS deducted on the basis of Form 16A and consequent erroneous levy of interest under Sections 234B and C of the Act; and (d) Non-grant of interest under Section 244A of the Act. 3. As far as the issue with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment and consequent addition to the total income in respect of an international transaction between

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

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

TDS deducted on the basis of Form 16A and consequent erroneous levy of interest under Sections 234B and C of the Act; and (d) Non-grant of interest under Section 244A of the Act. 3. As far as the issue with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment and consequent addition to the total income in respect of an international transaction between

NDS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

144C of the Act, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. All these appeals were heard together. Since some the issues in all these appeals are common, we deem it convenient to pass a consolidated IT(IT)A Nos.363, 504,505/Bang/2017 No.255/Bang/20214 Page 3 of 47 order. First, we shall take up the appeal relating to Assessment Year

NDS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

144C of the Act, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. All these appeals were heard together. Since some the issues in all these appeals are common, we deem it convenient to pass a consolidated IT(IT)A Nos.363, 504,505/Bang/2017 No.255/Bang/20214 Page 3 of 47 order. First, we shall take up the appeal relating to Assessment Year

NDS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 363/Bang/2017 M/S. Synamedia Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 2006-07 (Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited), Income Tax (International Taxation), C/O M/S. Synamedia India Private Circle -1(2), Limited, Bengaluru. Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aabcn 2524 L 504/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2012-13 505/Bang/2017 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 255/Bang/2014 -Do- The Assistant Director Of Income 2010-11 Tax, (International Taxation), Circle – 1(1) [Now Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Appellant By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021

144C of the Act, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. All these appeals were heard together. Since some the issues in all these appeals are common, we deem it convenient to pass a consolidated IT(IT)A Nos.363, 504,505/Bang/2017 No.255/Bang/20214 Page 3 of 47 order. First, we shall take up the appeal relating to Assessment Year

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act, for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: The learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO"), learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("learned TPO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP") grossly erred in adjusting the transfer price by INR 15,17,38,598/- of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated Enterprises

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, ORR, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant PAN AACCG 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Sharath Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2020 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 144C(8) of the Act. 11.2 ICRA Online Ltd., (‘ICRA’) was selected as a comparable by the TPO despite objections of the assessee to its inclusion on the ground that this company is not functionally comparable to the assessee. However, the DRP has directed ‘ICRA’s exclusion from the set of comparables on the ground that it fails

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BANGALORE vs. M/S CARL ZEISS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and cross objection of the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

15,69,598 iii) R. Muruganandam 21,76,060 Total 1,21,51,601 4. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that reimbursement to head quarter is not FTS. The assessee referred to the agreement under which the payment was made as well as the provisions of DTAA between India and Mauritius

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

TDS demand under Section 200A of the Act. 5. Other grounds 5.1. The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, by computing interest liability of INR 6,79,322 under Section 234A, INR.92,01,062 under section 234B and INR 9,20,335 under section 234C of the Act. 6. Penalty Proceedings 6.1. The learned AO has erred

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

144C of the Act, for assessment year 2006-07 on following grounds of appeal: The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits as under: IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 2 1.Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law The final assessment order issued by the Deputy a) Commissioner

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

144C(10) of the Act. 2.Determination of arm's length price by the Ld. TPO in relation to the Manufacturing Segment The Ld. DRP and Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the value of international transaction of manufacturing activity, as recorded in the books of account, at an arm's length price amounting

M/S.NDS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

144C of the Act (The Impugned order') inter-alia on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact, in treating the receipts pertaining to licensing of software by the Appellant

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

144C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR 38,59,910 is bad in law. General Ground Pressed Page

NICE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,USA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(2)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

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

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the learned JCIT failed to establish that he possessed legal and valid powers of performing Page 3 of 10 the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on him under section 120(4)(b) of the Act. 6. On the facts

M/S ORKLA ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

TDS were not deducted. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that since the receipts by the assessee were in the nature of the fee for technical services (FTS) were taxable receipts in the hands of the non-resident assessee in India. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the show cause as to why the professional receipts