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.

5. The TPO has passed the order under Section 92CA of the Act dt.30.10.2018. The Draft assessment order was passed by the TPO/- under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dt.24.12.2018, with Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.171,04,84,800/- and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.1,37,500/-, disallowance under Section 80G of the Act of Rs.1

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

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

INGERSOLL - RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1529/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.35, Kiadb Indl. Area, Circle 11(4), Banglaore. Bidadi, Bangalore-562 109 Appellant Respondent.

Section 144C(5) rws 144C(8) of the Act vide order dt.28.9.2010. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under :- 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or trading in air compressors, feeder crushers, loaders, vibratory compactors, light towers, utility vehicles and pavers, filed its return of income on 21.11.2006 declaring total income

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

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

144C of the Act. 33.5 Moreover, the disallowance of gratuity expenses was factually and legally flawed. Section 43B allows deduction for gratuity expenses paid before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has provided evidence that the payment was made on 15th September 2020, i.e., before the due date, and the same

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”); (b) Re-computation of deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act; (c) Non-grant of credit of entire 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

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”); (b) Re-computation of deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act; (c) Non-grant of credit of entire 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

M/S YASKAWA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.17/A, 2Nd Main, Electronic Income-Tax, City, Phase – I, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 100. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacy 4408 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 O R D E R

TDS of Rs. 9,37,869/-. IT(TP)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 7 4. Grounds 1 to 8 (Transfer Pricing Issues) and 9(b) – Corporate Tax 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that vide letter dated 21.03.2019, the assessee has sought withdrawal of appeal filed under section

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

5) of Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall in conformity with the directions complete the assessment proceedings. It goes without saying that if no objections are filed by the Assessee either before the DRP or the assessing officer to the determination by the TPO, section 92CA(4) would come into operation. Therefore, it is very clear that

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

5) of Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall in conformity with the directions complete the assessment proceedings. It goes without saying that if no objections are filed by the Assessee either before the DRP or the assessing officer to the determination by the TPO, section 92CA(4) would come into operation. Therefore, it is very clear that

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

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be apposite to have a glance at the relevant provisions in this regard. 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

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

144C(5) of the Act ("the impugned order"), inter-alia on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: General Grounds 1. The impugned order and directions of the Hon'ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law; 2. The learned

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and are subject to TDS u/s 194J. The DRP directed the AO to examine Page 10 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A Nos. 557 & 558/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 20/Bang/2017 whether the TDS has been deducted on the above-mentioned expenses. 3.3 The DRP accepted assessee’s without prejudice contention regarding

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and are subject to TDS u/s 194J. The DRP directed the AO to examine Page 10 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A Nos. 557 & 558/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 20/Bang/2017 whether the TDS has been deducted on the above-mentioned expenses. 3.3 The DRP accepted assessee’s without prejudice contention regarding

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

144C(1) of the Act. In the draft assessment order so passed the Ld.AO:- • disallowed depreciation on computer software at Rs.7,46,162/- for non-deduction of TDS; • disallowed payments on which TDS was not deducted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.7,46,162/-; • disallowed professional charges for non-deduction of TDS under section

M/S ZEOMEGA INFATECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.78/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Zeomega Infotech Private Limited, 20-21, Rajalakshmi Plaza, Southend Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 ….Appellant Pan Aaacz 1233F Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……Respondent. Circle 7(2)(1), Bangalore. Assessee By: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (D.R)

Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dt.19.09.2016. 2. . At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that he is pressing only Ground of appeal Nos.4(d) & 6 and sent email on the same day. 2 IT(TP)A No.78/Bang/2017 Accordingly, the other grounds of appeal are treated as not pressed and dismissed. The effective grounds

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

COMMUNICATIONS GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappeal No. Appellant Respondent It(It)A M/S. Communications Global The Deputy Commissioner Of No.89/Bang/2019 Network Services Limited, Income Tax 81, Newgate Street, London, (International Taxation), Assessment Year : Ec1A 7Aj, Circle – 2(1), 2009-10 United Kingdom. Bengaluru. Pan : Aagcc 9220 K It(It)A The Deputy Commissioner Of Nos.2218/Bang/2019, Income Tax 32/Bang/2021, -Do (International Taxation), 709/Bang/2022, Circle – 2(2), 165 To 167/Bang/2023 Bengaluru. Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2015-16 Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Aseem Sharma, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2009-10 to 2015-16. 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. IT(IT)A Nos. 89, 2218/Bang/2019, 32/Bang/2021, 709/Bang/2022, 165 to 167/Bang/2023 Page