M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2,04,44,000 Foreign remittance for labels 41,34,952 Foreign remittance for business promotion 5,15,843 Reimbursement of expat salary 43,52,220 Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 59,87,469 Disallowance of digital media expenses 10,12,47,072 Disallowance of TV advertisement expenses 26,16,12,490 Depreciation on goodwill

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

2,60,98,791 for design engineering services segment); 3. Rejection of economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant Erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the arm's length price in connection with

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

92C(2) on the basis of such material or information or document available with him. The following pertinent defects have been found in the TP analysis carried on by the tax payer. 1. As per Rule 1013(4), it is mandatory to the use the current financial year data i.e. the financial year in which the international transactions took place

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. Appropriate Transfer Pricing Methodology: 5. IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 56 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. Appropriate Transfer Pricing Methodology: 5. IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 56 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. Appropriate Transfer Pricing Methodology: 5. IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 56 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. Appropriate Transfer Pricing Methodology: 5. IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 56 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate

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

depreciation on software under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of non-deduction of TDS is not sustainable. • Directed the Ld.AO to verify the claim of TDS having deducted on professional fees paid and to allow the claim of assessee accordingly. • DRP accepted the contention of assessee that in computing deduction under section

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

92C(3)(a), (b) and (c) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the arm’s length interest is determined by following CUP method wherein the interest rate is determined under the circumstances in which the tax payer and its associated enterprises are operating i.e. ;what is the interest that would

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

92C, 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

MFX INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Depreciation and Amortization Expenses 14,03,030 Other Expenses 3,17,11,797 Total expenses 20,16,81,106 Total Operating Profit 49,54,497 OP/CO 2.46% 6. Further, out of the 10 comparable companies chosen by the assessee the TPO rejected 7 and applied new filter to choose fresh set . M/s. MFX Infotech Pvt. Ltd 9 of comparable companies

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

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

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction

MULTITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.73/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S. Multitech Software Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 12(1), Bangalore. No.170, 8Th Cross, 10Th Main, Indiranagar, 2Nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038 Pan Aaacm 9615Q Appellant Respondent.

Section 92C(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be revered and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave

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

Section 92C(2). 7.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to disallowance on payment of royalty. 7.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 14 of 50 No.2569/Bang/2017 dated

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

Section 92C(2). 7.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to disallowance on payment of royalty. 7.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 14 of 50 No.2569/Bang/2017 dated

M/S. ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

section 92C(3)(c), it is relevant to hold that the data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct. The TPO thereafter proceeded to determine arm's length price by conducting an independent search for comparables considering the functions of the taxpayer, the assets employed and the risks taken and the results