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

TDS credit after verifying the claim of assessee. 20. The Ld.AO upon receipt of DRP directions called upon assessee to file various details. In compliance assessee filed all relevant details to the Ld.AO, however the same was not considered in accordance with the directions of DRP. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.AO, assessee as well as revenue

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

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

TDS made and deposited with the Government. Page 15 of 26 IT(TP)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Accordingly, we aside Ground 4 & 9 back to DRP.” Respectfully following the above, we set aside this issue back to the DRP. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No.7 Ld.AR submitted that under the Employee Share Based

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

TDS made and deposited with the Government. Accordingly, we aside Ground 4 & 9 back to DRP.” Respectfully following the above, we set aside this issue back to the DRP. 7. Ground No. 5 in A.Y. 2012-13 and ground no. 4 in A.Y. 2014-15 – The Ld.AR submitted that this payment of Rs.292

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

TDS made and deposited with the Government. Accordingly, we aside Ground 4 & 9 back to DRP.” Respectfully following the above, we set aside this issue back to the DRP. 7. Ground No. 5 in A.Y. 2012-13 and ground no. 4 in A.Y. 2014-15 – The Ld.AR submitted that this payment of Rs.292

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

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. 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 GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

92D of the Act read with rule ioD of the Rules in respect of the Service segment and selectively rejecting certain comparables. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DRP erred in upholding the action of the learned AO/ learned TPO in not considering the multiple year/prior year data of comparable companies while determining

M/S. KODIAK NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.284/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Mfar Manyata Tech Park, Greenheart, Phase Iv, Nagawara, Bangalore-560 045 ….Appellant Pan Aacck 0978J Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

TDS on purchase of software; and b. Not appreciating that software expenses are revenue in nature and allowable as deduction. Computation of Book Profits 7. The lower authorities have erred in adding provision for loyalty bonus of Rs.45,13,498/- while computing book profits u/s 115JB.” 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

92D of the Act read with Rule ioD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the aggregation approach followed by the Appellant to benchmark the international transactions including payment of royalty. 5. That, on the facts and circumstances

INGERSOLL-RAND(INDIA) LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CR11(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

TDS to the extent of Rs. 5,92,70,316 as against Rs. 6,05,12,937 claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income, thus resulting in a short credit of Rs. 12,42,621. 4) Interest under Section 234B - The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS on the expenditure debited to the P&L account towards ESoP in the IT(TP)A No.284/Bang/2021 M/s. AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore Page 13 of 37 assessment year under consideration and decide it afresh in the light of above judgement of jurisdictional High Court. Ordered accordingly. 10. Next ground Nos.17 to 28 for our consideration are with regard

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

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. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

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

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

92D read with Rule 10 D (4), is not available for a relevant year, multiple year data should not be used. Characterisation: Based upon above FAR analysis, we shall now undertake compatibility tests of assessee with comparables under objection for inclusion. Page 22 of 52 IT(TP)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 8.1 At the outset, Ld.AR submits that for year under

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

92D read with Rule 10 D (4), is not available for a relevant year, multiple year data should not be used. 7.1 Based upon above FAR analysis, we shall now undertake compatibility tests of assessee with comparables under objection for inclusion. 8. With aforestated understanding, let us analyse comparables alleged to be excluded by assessee before

XLHEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was made. After receipt of the draft assessment order, objections were filed before the Hon’ble DRP contending inter alia the selection of comparables as well as disallowance of depreciation on royalty. The ld. DRP, after duly considering the submissions of the assessee-company confirmed the findings of the TPO. After receipt of IT(TP)A No. 2311/Bang/2016 Page

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by invoking Section 92C(3)(c) of the Act and holding that the information or data used in the Page 2 of 28 IT(TP)A No. 711/Bang/2017 computation of the arm's length price is not 'reliable or correct' and accordingly proceeded to determine the arm's length price