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

BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” IT(TP)A No. 1180/Bang/2011 Page 45 of 65 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules

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. 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

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. TESCO HINDUSTAN SERVICE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length price under section

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

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

1), Bengaluru (“Learned TPO”) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“Learned Panel”), to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant, are bad in law and contrary to the facts. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

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. 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 of INR 1

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

92D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and thereby erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant. 3:3 The AO/TPO/DRP have erred in rejecting the detailed functional and economic analysis and methodical search process undertaken by the Appellant to identify 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') read with rule ioD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules') in respect of the Service segment and selectively rejecting certain comparables. 4. 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 allowing

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

92D of the Act and carrying out of fresh TP study by the TPO: 1. The Hon’ble DRP is not justified in upholding the action of the learned TPO in invoking section 92C(3) and rejecting the TP study carried out by the appellant though none of the conditions specified u/s 92C(3) of the Act was satisfied

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

M/S SALESFORCE.COM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence. 2.2. Rejecting the comparability analysis carried out by the Assessee in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for the international transaction of software development services and marketing and sales support services based on the application of additional filters in determining the arm's length price

M/S.LM WIND POWER TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT., LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

section 92D of the Act. IT(T)A No.1692(B)/2016 6 Ld.TPO observed that assessee develops and manufactures blades for wind turbines both small onshore wind turbines and large turbines in offshore wind farms. It was observed that assessee develops technology and products with new capabilities to monitor operations, protect against lightening strikes and ensure maximum energy production