M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

92C of the Act in terms of CBDT Instruction No.3/16 and failure to make such reference made the assessment order erroneous. In our opinion, the TP risk parameter was not one of the reasons for limited scrutiny of the case and as such the PCIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act so as to direct

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

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

92C(3) based on ‘enhanced’ income. We therefore find merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld.Counsel in this regards. 45. The Ld.Counsel before us submitted that assessee does not have any other income other than the income generated from the units that is eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is also been submitted that

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

92C, 92D and 92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A. (ii) any transaction referred

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

92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. The Ld. Panel erred in confirming the same. B. Corporate Tax 7. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act — Chennai SEZ unit - Rs. 181,403,235 a) The Ld. AO has erred in denying the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act amounting to Rs.181,403,235 claimed

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:

2 of 17 IT(IT)A No. 961/Bang/2017 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact. by not considering the plea of the Appellant that foreign

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

92C(2). 7.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to disallowance on payment of royalty. 7.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 14 of 50 No.2569/Bang/2017 dated 1.6.2022 wherein

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

92C(2). 7.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to disallowance on payment of royalty. 7.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 14 of 50 No.2569/Bang/2017 dated 1.6.2022 wherein

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.

92C of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules. 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 4.1. The Honorable DRPand the Learned AO have erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs 1,37,500 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules

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

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting comparability analysis carried in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters in determining the ALP. 4. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the previous two years financial data of the comparable companies while determining

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

92C of the Act read with Rule IOD of the Rules. 1.18.4 The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO/ TPO have erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment at the entity level instead of restricting the adjustment to the cost of international transaction. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2.1 The Honorable DRP and the Learned AO have erred

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred inrejecting the companies M/s Oil Field Instrumentation India Ltd & M/s Celestial labs Ltd as com parables to R&D Service Segment of taxpayer. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred inrejecting the companies M/s Oil Field Instrumentation India Ltd & M/s Celestial labs Ltd as com parables to R&D Service Segment of taxpayer. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred inrejecting the companies M/s Oil Field Instrumentation India Ltd & M/s Celestial labs Ltd as com parables to R&D Service Segment of taxpayer. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned

M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred inrejecting the companies M/s Oil Field Instrumentation India Ltd & M/s Celestial labs Ltd as com parables to R&D Service Segment of taxpayer. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred inrejecting the companies M/s Oil Field Instrumentation India Ltd & M/s Celestial labs Ltd as com parables to R&D Service Segment of taxpayer. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

92C(4). 39.16 As per provisions of sec.92(3), the transfer pricing provision of sec.92 shall not apply in a case where the computation of income/expenses under sub. sec (1) or (2) or (2A) of sec.92 has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax or increasing the loss, as the case may be, computed on the basis

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

section 92C(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the same. 11. Without prejudice to the grounds mentioned above, the learned TPO / NeAC erred in not giving effect to the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP 11.1. The learned TPO erred in not excluding warranty expenses amounting to INR 6,21,97,811 from