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

92C(2). 6.1 The crux of the above grounds is with regard to disallowance of sales promotion expenses. 6.2 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under: “10. After hearing both

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

3% from the arithmetic mean The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in law in not granting the benefits of proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. The Ld. Panel erred in confirming the same. B. Corporate Tax 7. Disallowance

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

disallowances / additions made in the assessment order, has challenged the same in appeal before us. 3. Ground Nos.1 to 7 are general in nature which do not require any adjudication. 4. Ground No.8 to 18 of the assessee’s appeal reads as under: IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 70 I. Grounds relating to payment

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)

92C(3) of the Act and not accepting the TP documentation/economic analysis which was undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the arm’s length price of the impugned international transactions. On the facts and circumstances

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , 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.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C 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 Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

3% from the arithmetic mean The Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in law in not granting the benefits of proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. 7. Relief 7 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all- such relief arising

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 92C(2), instead of 3%, with respect to the trading segment and also changing the functional profile of the Appellant to a wholesale trader instead of a Sogo Shosha establishment. 10. That the Learned AO/ Learned Panel erred in rejection of the use of Berry Ratio as the appropriate profit level indicator ("PL") in order

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

92C (4) denied the claim of deduction u/s.10A vis-a-vis additional income offered by the assessee under APA proceedings. The also invoked the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D and made a disallowance of Rs 23,93,733/-. 3

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

92C (4) denied the claim of deduction u/s.10A vis-a-vis additional income offered by the assessee under APA proceedings. The also invoked the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D and made a disallowance of Rs 23,93,733/-. 3

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied in the instant case. The ITO also erred in not following the provision contained in section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2.2 Rejection of aggregation of transaction approach followed by the Appellant a) The learned TPO erred, in law and in fact, by rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Ace), is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction, as the Addl. Commissioner did not have the power to perform the functions of an 'Assessing Officer', in absence of an order issued to him under section 120(4)(b) of the Act conferring him with valid jurisdiction. The Appellant prays that the said

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) was passed.\n13. Accordingly, the draft assessment order under section 144C\n(1) was passed on 26/12/2023 proposing and variation of the\nabove amount in the transfer pricing adjustment. Further it\nwas found that the depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,845,615/-\nhas been claimed for which the details were asked. As no\ninformation was forthcoming, the learned assessing officer

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3 approach as depicted in Ground 25 above, when the said approach has been upheld in Appellant’s own case by the jurisdictional bench of Honourable ITAT for AY 2015- 16. 27. The Honourable DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law in not considering the detailed submissions of the Appellant that even after performing an AMP expense intensity

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

In the result, the appeal by the AO is dismissed

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

section 92C(4) is not applicable and assessee is entitled to higher deduction. The ld. AO considered the explanation of the assessee and held that assessee is not eligible to deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act on Page 3 of 7 the above adjustment, pursuant to APA and accordingly excess claim of deduction u/s. 10AA of Rs.6

QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE :LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 92C of the Act 3. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters for the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction thereby following a non-transparent approach. Segmental

HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not considering multiple year financial data of the comparable companies while determining the Arm's Length Price ["ALP"] as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ["the Rules"]. 4. The learned AO, learned

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

92C(4). 39.16 As per provisions of sec.92(3), the transfer pricing provision of sec.92 shall not apply in a case where the computation of income/expenses under sub. sec (1) or (2) or (2A) of sec.92 has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax or increasing the loss, as the case may be, computed on the basis

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

sections 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act, read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules,1962 ("the Rules"). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO have erred in arbitrarily selecting comparable companies based on incorrect appreciation of functional, asset and risk profile, and arbitrary filters. 2.1 That

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

3,68,918/- only. This rectification order passed by the AO was not given effect in the final assessment order. 35.3 Therefore, we in view of the above detailed discussion, direct the AO to compute the interest on delayed receivable as per rectified order of the TPO and taking the interest at LIBOR + 200 basis point. Hence