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

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

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

6,07,73,624/- in the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 143(3) read with Section 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

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

6,07,73,624/- in the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 143(3) read with Section 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

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

C. Certify that the actions of the Company are in accordance with FEMA and relevant guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. Oct 2013 DB submitted DHS audit report (copy enclosed as Annexure 8) to RBI on the process review, sample testing, transaction audit and FEMA guidelines review. Dec 2013 DB submitted a letter to RBI stating, inter-alia, that

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. The remittances for Engineering Services paid to ASAS were totaling to an amount of Rs.23,70,78,604/-, whereas an amount of Rs. 57,422,160 was debited to the profit and loss account for the said year. It was also gathered that the said issue is the subject matter of order under section 201 and 201(1A) dated

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.

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 has filed

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

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

C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1539/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited., Income Tax, No.41, Bhimenahalli, MN Halli Post, Circle – 7(1)(1), Manchanayakanahalli B.O, Bidadi, Bangalore. Ramanagara. PAN – AAECT 1871 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

144C in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short DRP) for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2007-08 respectively. 2. First we take up the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds : 2 IT(TP)A Nos.292/Bang/2014 & 1592/Bang/2012 3 IT(TP)A Nos.292/Bang/2014 & 1592/Bang/2012

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

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

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

144C(11) of the Act and passing direction which is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. B. Corporate Tax 2. Incorrect disallowance with respect to expenditure on Employee Stock Option Plan ("ESOP") under section 37 of the Act — INR 18,18,00,000 2.1. The Learned AO and Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts, in disallowing

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.

6 SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India [(2002) 3 SCC 722 : .IT (2002) 3 SC 21].) " 29. The language employed is simple. 31.12.2019 is the last date for the assessing officer to pass his order under 13 IT(TP)A No.418/B/2015 & 596/B/2016. M/s.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited. Section 153. The TPO has to pass order before

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.

6 SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India [(2002) 3 SCC 722 : .IT (2002) 3 SC 21].) " 29. The language employed is simple. 31.12.2019 is the last date for the assessing officer to pass his order under 13 IT(TP)A No.418/B/2015 & 596/B/2016. M/s.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited. Section 153. The TPO has to pass order before

M/S ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

c) to reject the TP study of the appellant on the ground that information as well as data used in computation of ALP are not reliable and correct. 3. The Hon’ble DRP has failed to appreciate that the learned TPO was not justified in rejecting the TP document maintained by the appellant on the ground that appellant adopted inappropriate

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.

TDS from Rs.1,68,88,845 in the original return, to Rs.2,48,77,109 in the revised return. In the assessment year under consideration, the assessee primarily operated its business in two segments; (i) Air Solution Segment manufacturing air compressors and (ii) Infrastructure segment manufacturing mining and compaction equipments. The Assessing Officer made a reference under Section 92CA

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

6. Additional ground of appeal by the assessee – Admission regarding 6.1 As regard the admission of the additional grounds raised by the assessee, the learned AR submitted that all the additional grounds related to the inclusion and/or exclusion of comparable companies. It was submitted that a generic ground was raised in Form No.36 on rejecting the comparable companies selected

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