TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

133(6) of the Act were issued. 3 Erroneous data used by the AO/TPO a) The AO/TPO has erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting the transfer pricing study by the Appellant or at the time of undertaking of assessment

M/S TRILOGY E- BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P.) A. No.33/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.1/2, Lalitha Nilaya, 4Th Cross, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bhopsandra, Bangalore-560 094. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore-560 001. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P.) A. No.115/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.5.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 6.11.2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 2. The Assessee-Company Was Incorporated In June 2000 & Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Versata International Inc., (Previously Known As Trilogy Inc.). During The Financial Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Provided Software Development Services As Well As Call Centre Services To Its Associated Enterprises (In Short ‘Aes’). The Assessee Is Compensated On Cost +10% Basis By Its Aes For The Services Provided By The Assessee. The Financial Results Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Recorded By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short ‘Tpo’) In Paragraph 2.1 As Under :

section 133(6) of the Act, the company has categorized itself as a pure software developer and therefore included this company as a comparable as the assessee was also a provider of software development services. Before us, in addition to the plea that the company was functionally different, the assessee submitted that this company was excluded from the list

AMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation adjustment claimed by the Appellant. 7 Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean The AO/TPO erred in law and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the variation as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 8 Interest under section 234B of the Act On the facts, and circumstances of the case

ITO vs. M/S AAMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation adjustment claimed by the Appellant. 7 Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean The AO/TPO erred in law and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the variation as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 8 Interest under section 234B of the Act On the facts, and circumstances of the case

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The basis of valuation is set out in para-11 of the valuation report of Bizworth in our view is in fact an intangible acquired by the Assessee and the basis of estimation of its value is reasonable and acceptable. We therefore direct that depreciation be allowed on this intangible treating

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

section 133 (6) we find that this company is involved in various activities as compared to captive software service provider like assessee. It is also observed that in the case of Meritor LVS India Pvt Ltd (supra) Ld.TPO used very same 26 comparables for computing arm’s length margin of software development service segment direct. This Tribunal after considering

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

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)

section 133 (6). Accordingly, we direct Ld.TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list. 8.2.13. Persistent systems Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that this comparable has been included by Ld.TPO, however in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008- 09 this Tribunal in ITA No.5401/Del/2012 directed exclusion of the same on the ground that it is functionally different with

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance\nunder this Act has been computed;]\n31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of\ninformation or document received from the prescribed income-tax\nauthority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6) of the Act as all the lenders’ names and addresses were provided during the course of assessment proceedings by the appellant and the learned CIT(A) also commented very vaguely that the appellant has not maintained any books of accounts and ITA Nos.1656 to 1658/Bang/2024 Page 14 of 32 hence it cannot be considered the same. The learned

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

depreciation were incorporated. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is on appeal with the following grounds: IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 5 10. That the learned Assessing Officer and the learned Panel erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 6 07. Transfer Pricing issues : Provision of SWD services segment

SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to obtain further information from the Companies ought 4 IT(TP)A No.1094/Bang/2011 not to have been acted upon as benefit of such data which is not in the public domain is not available to your appellant. iv) Your appellant functions in a limited risk environment vis-à-vis entrepreneurial risk borne

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

Section 32 of the Act. The assessee’s impugned asset on which depreciation claimed was included in the block of assets. Further it was submitted that the Assessing Officer having granted the maintenance expenditure of Car, it is not proper to disallow the depreciation on the same Car. He relied on the following judgements : 14 i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

section 133(6) of the Act that was not available to the Appellant in the public domain and relying on the same for comparability purpose (and to the extent of completely ignoring reliable data available in public domain/ annual reports in numerous cases). 4.4. rejecting the economic and comparability analysis in the TP documentation/ fresh search and in conducting

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

section 133(6) of the Act that was not available to the Appellant in the public domain and relying on the same for comparability purpose (and to the extent of completely ignoring reliable data available in public domain/ annual reports in numerous cases). 4.4. rejecting the economic and comparability analysis in the TP documentation/ fresh search and in conducting

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

section 133(6) of the Act. It is observed that there is no segmental information in respect of this company in annual report. We are unable to understand how segmentation was done by Ld.TPO and reconciliation of annual report. In such a situation we are of the opinion that Flextronics Software Solutions Ltd (seg) cannot not be considered