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

disallowance by the Ld. AO under section 10A regarding the voluntary income offered by assessee for computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 39. On one hand, it is the assessee’s contention that provisions of section 92(4) will not be applicable in this case as the transfer Page 24 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 pricing adjustment has been

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. The Ld. Panel erred in confirming the same. B. Corporate Tax 7. Disallowance

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

disallowing the said expense without giving cognizance to the facts of the Appellant and the various judicial precedents relied on by the Appellant. 7.4. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding that ESOP/ Employee Share Based Plan (`ESBP') expense does not satisfy conditions of section

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 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 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

disallowed, the closing stock also ought to be reduced from the taxable income resulting in no tax impact. 30 IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/s.United Spirits Limited. (iv) Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, we wish to submit that the TPO has not applied any of the six methods as prescribed under section 92C

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 92C of the Act read with Rule IOD of the Rules. 1.18.4 The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO/ TPO have erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment at the entity level instead of restricting the adjustment to the cost of international transaction. 2. Disallowance

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting comparability analysis carried in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters in determining the ALP. 4. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the previous two years financial data of the comparable companies while determining

MPHASIS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

92C(2). REDUCTION IN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY 12. In the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in reducing the foreign currency expenses from both the export turnover and the total turnover of units while computing the 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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 50 3. The assessee initially filed XVI grounds of appeal. However it subsequently filed the following concise grounds of appeal for consideration which are extracted hereunder: IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 50 IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2015 Page

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

section 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. 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate methodology for determining the transfer pricing

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

section 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. 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate methodology for determining the transfer pricing

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

section 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. 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate methodology for determining the transfer pricing

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

section 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. 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate methodology for determining the transfer pricing

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

disallowance under section 14A stands deleted. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” Admittedly for year under consideration 11. Ground nos. 12 to 14 (A.Y. 2012-13) are consequential in nature. Page 15 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

disallowance under section 14A stands deleted. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed.” Admittedly for year under consideration 11. Ground nos. 12 to 14 (A.Y. 2012-13) are consequential in nature. Page 15 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

92C(4) of the Act, where the ALP was determined by the assessee and not by the assessing authority. Reliance was also placed on EYBGS India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2020) (I.T.(TP)A. No. 218/Bang/2015) (Bangalore ITAT) wherein, it has been held that the Assessee would be entitled to claim the benefit of section

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), after proposing the adjustment 5.1 The crux of the issue in these grounds is with regard to disallowance

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), after proposing the adjustment 5.1 The crux of the issue in these grounds is with regard to disallowance

M/S SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

92C(2). Grounds Relating To Computation Of Deduction Under Section 10AA:- 10. The lower authorities have erred in: a. Calculating deduction under section 1 OAA on combined basis for all the eligible units rather than computing deduction each undertaking wise. b. Excluding Rs.1,10,88,43,931 being communication expenses, travel, insurance, professional charged, software expenses, expenses at branch office

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