ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

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

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

144C of the Act. 6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in holding that interest under section 115-P of the Act is leviable on the Appellant. 7 That the Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above

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

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

144C(3) of the Income\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member It(Tp)A No.2235(Bang)/2016 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S The Himalaya Drug Company, Makali, Tumkur Road, Bangalore-562 162 Pan No.Aadft3025B Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Ms Neera Malhotra, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2019 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

144C goes to root of the matter, and it is necessary to decide first preliminary issue raised. 7. Ld.AR submits that period of limitation for issuance of notice under section 143(2) starts from date on which assessee filed return in lieu of notice under section 148 of the Act. He submitted that assessee filed its return on 20/12/13 pursuant

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

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

144C of the Act dated 19.3.2013 after making certain disallowances on corporate tax listed below and computed the total income at Rs 2,843,922,040:-  Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80JJA – Rs.77,851,741.  Disallowance of expenses on discontinued capital project – Rs.74,19,000.  Disallowance of write off of capital work in progress – Rs.12,46,021.  Disallowance of expenditure under

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

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

144C of the Act dated 19.3.2013 after making certain disallowances on corporate tax listed below and computed the total income at Rs 2,843,922,040:-  Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80JJA – Rs.77,851,741.  Disallowance of expenses on discontinued capital project – Rs.74,19,000.  Disallowance of write off of capital work in progress – Rs.12,46,021.  Disallowance of expenditure under

M/S INFOSYS 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

section 10AA of the Act. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Ground nos. 41 & 42 - Reduction of deduction under section 10AA in respect of pure onsite revenue 16.1 It was submitted that a software development project typically goes through the stages of requirement analysis, prototyping, design, pilots, programming, testing and installation and maintenance. A software

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. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(13) of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the draft assessment order as per the directions of the DRP. 2.5 The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.429,75,39,850/- against the income of Rs.349,75,85,670/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. 2.6 The assessee being aggrieved

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

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.

TDS under section 192 of the Act, giving rise to double taxation on the same transaction. 6. Disallowance of corporate social responsibility expenses claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act 7 IT(TP)A No.2355/Bang/2019 6.1 The honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount

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

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 1. Ground Nos. 2.1 to 2.9 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- “Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of Management Service Fee: IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 84 2.1. The learned AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ('TP0') erred in law and on facts in concluding that the Arm's Length