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

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

section 133(6) of the Act, which is grossly unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same i) The AO/TPO cherry picked comparable companies by way of (a) a non-methodical search process, and (b) exercising non- uniformity in the application of filters and the Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same. j) Without prejudice

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

section 133(6) of the Act, which is grossly unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same i) The AO/TPO cherry picked comparable companies by way of (a) a non-methodical search process, and (b) exercising non- uniformity in the application of filters and the Ld.CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same. j) Without prejudice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation on fixed assts adopted by it were higher than those followed by comparable companies and that adjustments were required to the cost base adopted while determining the arms length price. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III, Bangalore erred in not appreciating the contentions of the assessee that

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6 of 44 and R&D-intensive activities. In contrast, the Assessee is a catalogue electronic components/interconnects manufacturer (connectors, relays, sensors, switches, cable interconnects) focused on precision molding/stamping/plating and high-volume assembly with limited intangibles. The FAR thus differs materially in Functions (system design/integration vs component manufacturing), Assets/Intangibles (IP and specialized labs vs tooling/process know-how), and Risks (programme/qualification

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 133(6) of the Act to collate the information on capacity details of the comparable companies such as actual capacity in units, installed capacity, break up of fixed and variable cost, product wise segmental profitability (if any) and provide the assessee an opportunity by sharing the details so obtained on the comparable companies, and accordingly grant the adjustment

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

133(6) of the Act directly without confronting to the assessee, the additions made is wrong and the AO has not rightly added the differences noted in the closing balance of the creditors with the assessee’s closing balance as on 31.03.2014. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that