VMWARE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

section 144C(13) of the I.T.Act mandates that the A.O. shall complete the assessment in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP. Since the TP adjustment made in the final assessment order is not in conformity with the DRP’s directions, the final assessment order is, to this extent, bad in law and thus unsustainable. Therefore, we delete

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

13. Without Prejudice to Ground no. 11 & 12, on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP failed to give any show cause notice to the Appellant before directing the Learned AO to benchmark the AMP expenses separately which is in violation of provisions of section 144C(11) of the Act. 14. Without

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 as capital in nature even though it was incurred for the purpose of day-to-day business operations of the Appellant and is within the 20% threshold adopted by Learned AO making the said adjustment. The Learned

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

13) Additional grounds of appeal filed on 16.01.2018 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred in not excluding 'Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd.' in its comparability analysis even though it is functionally dissimilar to the Appellant. (corresponding to additional ground no. 14) 15. On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

13) Additional grounds of appeal filed on 16.01.2018 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred in not excluding 'Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd.' in its comparability analysis even though it is functionally dissimilar to the Appellant. (corresponding to additional ground no. 14) 15. On the facts and in the circumstances

CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY 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

13) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act ("impugned order") for Assessment Year ("AY") 2016-17 dated 31 March 2021, in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the "Hon'ble DRP"), Bangalore dated 19 February 2021 under section 144C(5) of the Act inter-alia on the following grounds

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

144C(13) of the Act. 2. Since common issues arise for consideration in all these appeals, they were heard together and we deem it convenient to pass consolidated order. 3. The factual background in all these appeals needs to be first set out. The assessee is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of manufacture of connectors & cable interconnects and fibre

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGLURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

144C(13) was passed on 25/09/2017 by making an addition based on the adjustment made by the Ld.TPO u/s. 92CA which was enhanced by the directions of the DRP to Rs. 15,34,02,063/-. 2.3 Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT on verification of the assessment record, was of the opinion that assessee had received capital goods free of cost amounting

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

144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Reopening of Assessment: 2.1 The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that no "fresh tangible material

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. The learned AO, based on directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in assessing the total income at Rs. 4,89,94,919/- as against returned income

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

144C(13) and section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dated July 27, 2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department ('learned Assessing Officer' or 'learned AO'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. B. Disallowance

M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.)A. No.97/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Co. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Sy.No.32, No.469, Jakkasandra Village, Circle 2(1)(1), Sondekappa Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru-1. Bengaluru Ruraldistrict-562 123 Pan Aaccb 7928D Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P.)A. No.493/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee : Shri K.K. Chythanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ganapati R Bhat,Cit-Iii (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By Revenue, Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.31.12.2014, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dt.21.11.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing & Trading Of Wood Working Machinery, Spare Parts & Tools & Also Provides Software Testing, Technical Design & Marketing Services To Its Parent Company, Biesse Spa, Italy. The Assessee

144C(13) of the Act dt.31.12.2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,87,17,950, in view of the T.P.Adjustment of Rs.10,67,28,496. 9 IT(T.P)A Nos.97 & 493/Bang/2015 Assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 in IT(TP)A No.97/Bang/2015. 5.1 Aggrieved by the final order of assessment for Assessment Year

M/S SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

144C(13) of the Act by the Ld. AO was served on the Appellant on November 29, 2018 whereas the due date for completion of the assessment was October 31, 2018. 3. Erroneous treatment of foreign exchange loss pertaining to Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds as operating in nature 3.1. Given the facts and circumstances of the case

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved

VF BRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1285/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

13 April 2017) by the Ld. AO pursuant to DRP directions under Section 144C is time barred and invalid in law 2. Ld. AO has erred, in assessing the total income at INR 15,40,63,273 as against the returned income of INR NIL computed by the Appellant Without prejudice to the above, we have provided below transfer pricing

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 30.4.2021. 2. The assessee was incorporated on 18.05 2015, as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco Electronics Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore, and is engaged in providing ITeS in the nature of shared services in the areas of Information Technology, Finance back-office, Human Resource, customer support

EBIX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144C (13) read with section 144B of The Income -Tax\nAct, 1961 (The Act) dated 27/10/2024 passed by The\nAssessment Unit, Income Tax Department (the learned AO)\ndetermining total income at ₹ 50,021,422/- wherein the\nvariations made to the arm's-length price of the international\ntransaction was computed at ₹ 48,175,807 and disallowance\nof depreciation

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] as per the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’] issued vide Order, dated 29/05/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. Assessment Year 2020-2021 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The impugned order passed