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 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

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 enterprises

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation cannot be allowed. We accordingly remand the matter by allowing the grounds of the Assessee for statistical purposes to examine the issue afresh by considering the Tribunals order in assessee’s own case for the earlier year (supra). Concise Ground 5 and 6 (Corporate Tax Issues) 7. The above grounds deal with disallowance of sales promotion expenditure incurred

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

92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining IT(TP)A No.1548/Bang/2010 Page 4 of 40 the ALP. Operating profits to cost was adopted as the Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”). The PLI of the assessee was arrived at as follows: Operating Revenue

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

section 92E;]\n(c) where an assessment has been made, but—\n(i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or\n(ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or\n(iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under\nthis Act; or\n(iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

section 92E;]\n(c) where an assessment has been made, but—\n(i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or\n(ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or\n(iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under\nthis Act; or\n(iv) excessive loss or depreciation

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

section 92E;]\n\n(c) where an assessment has been made, but—\n(i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or\n(ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate30 ; or\n(iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under\nthis Act; or\n(iv) excessive loss or depreciation

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

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 to in section

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

92E, “international transaction “ means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either 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 enterprises, and shall

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

depreciation is to be granted to assessee at 60%. Needless to say that proper opportunity must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. Ground Nos. 8 to 18 (A.Y. 2014-15) –AMP Adjustment For Assessment Year 2014-15, one additional issue on AMP adjustment has been raised

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

depreciation adjustment, (c) marketing expenditure. (d) research and development expenditure (e) working capital and (f) risk profile between the Appellant and the companies identified by the learned TPO/ learned JAO. The Hon'ble DRP NeAC erred in upholding the same. 10.6. Without prejudice to the grounds mentioned above, the learned TPO / learned AO erred in law in not granting

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

depreciation is to be granted to assessee at 60%. Needless to say that proper opportunity must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 13. Ground Nos. 8 to 18 (A.Y. 2014-15) –AMP Adjustment For Assessment Year 2014-15, one additional issue on AMP adjustment has been raised

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

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

depreciation as applicable to “Computers”. In our view, the above said decision has been rendered in a different context, i.e., within the category of ‘Plant and Machinery’, the sub- question was whether the peripherals could be classified as Computers. Since the functions performed by the peripherals are different from that of a computer, the High Court held that they cannot

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

depreciation as applicable to “Computers”. In our view, the above said decision has been rendered in a different context, i.e., within the category of ‘Plant and Machinery’, the sub-question was whether the peripherals could be classified as Computers. Since the functions performed by the peripherals are different from that of a computer, the High Court held that they cannot