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 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules as well as the fresh search and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 2.4. disregarding multiple year/ prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [(i.e. Financial Year ("FY") 2010-1 1] data for comparable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8)Notwithstanding

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

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, 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

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 as per 22570821 Nil Nil 22570821 Nil 22570821 books Add: Inadmissible expenses 327387 3512007 12030164 12030164 Addition u/s.92E — 8190770 Transfer Pricing adjustment Less: Depredation as per 2046496 Nil Nil 2046496 Nil 2046496 IT Act Others Profits from business 65874983 (51401852) 8186989 22660120 215968 22444151 Less: Deduction u/s.10A 62614737 6931232 69545969 - 69545969 It is noticed from schedule

M/S. TRIDENT MICROSYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2234/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation on intangible assets as operating in nature; 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned TPO has erred on facts and in law, in re-computing the segmental results of margins earned by the eligible assessee on Software R&D Services by treating the income earned on foreign exchange fluctuation as non-operating in nature; 9. Without prejudice

M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

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

BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES 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), IT(TP)A No.1276/Bang/2011 Page 44 of 54 on the basis of such material or information or document available with him: 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, 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

MOOG CONTROLS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & 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 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

92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

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)

section 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

XLHEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 92D of the Act. 6. That on fact of the case and in law, the learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on low turnover, different financial year end, service income, export service income and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 7. That on fact of the case

CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with Rule 10B, 10C and 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"), without providing the cogent reason. 2.2 The Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP erred in la vrant rrZFinot following the Hon'ble ITAT's order in Assessee's own case, for earlier assessment years having

M/S BLUE COAT NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.78/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence. 4.2. Rejecting the comparability analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for the software development services based on the application of additional filters in determining the arm's length price. 4.3. Using data, which was not contemporaneous and which

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 [‘the Rules’] without considering the functional and risk profile of the Company. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the actions of the AO/ TPO. b) The AO/ TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting one method [‘Cost Plus Method’] and selecting another

KIRLOSKAR TOYOTA TEXTILE MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 92D of the Act. 4. That the Learned AO in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Panel erred in law and facts by rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (`the Rules'), thereby arbitrarily rejecting the economic analysis undertaken