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 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be ignored. • As regards computation of 10A deduction, the DRP directed the Ld.AO to compute in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Tata Elxsi Ltd., and others reported in (2011) 247 CTR 334; • the DRP also directed the Ld.AO

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

disallowance in this case. What the Revenue urges essentially is that the unless the employer/assessee acquires the shares from a third party, it cannot claim any deduction and that expenditure claimed for allotment or issue of ESOP is merely notional. This Court is of the opinion that such an argument ignores the realities of functioning of commercial entities who would

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

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

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 SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.1 & original ground no. 2.1) 2.2 Disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the profit level indicators ("PLI") of the comparable companies; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.2 & original ground no. 2.2) 2.3 Using data, which was not contemporaneous and which

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.1 & original ground no. 2.1) 2.2 Disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the profit level indicators ("PLI") of the comparable companies; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.2 & original ground no. 2.2) 2.3 Using data, which was not contemporaneous and which

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.FILTREX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

3. Aggrieved by adjustments proposed by Ld.TPO, under various segments assessee raised objections before DRP, who upheld view of Ld.TPO. 3.1 On receipt of DRP directions, Ld.AO passed final impugned assessment order, wherein following additions were made  transfer pricing additions in software service development segment was made amounting to Rs.31,36297/-  transfer pricing addition in research and development segment

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

disallowance of excess claim under section 10A of the Act of Rs. 970,832, thereby proposing to determine the taxable income of the Appellant at Rs. 71,091,305. The draft assessment order was served to the Appellant on 22 December 2011. 15. The Appellant filed a letter dated 1. January 2012, requesting the AO to pass the final assessment

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

disallowance of excess claim under section 10A of the Act of Rs. 970,832, thereby proposing to determine the taxable income of the Appellant at Rs. 71,091,305. The draft assessment order was served to the Appellant on 22 December 2011. 15. The Appellant filed a letter dated 1. January 2012, requesting the AO to pass the final assessment

M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowing the deduction u/s 80JJA without appreciating that the conclusions reached are contrary to the provision of the Act and the binding precedents, especially in the Appellants own case. Addition made by AO 15 The learned AO has erred in: a) adding interest of Rs. 295,531 on delayed payment of dividend distribution tax ("DDT") to the tax payable

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

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

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

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC IT BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.185/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowances made in the assessment, order. 2. That the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") ignored the judicial pronouncements and erred in dismissing the grounds of objections raised by the Appellant and upholding the adjustment proposed by the Ld. AO/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") without providing any cogent reasons for the same. 3. That the Ld. AO erred

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. First ground of appeal is reproduced below: 1. That, orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru (“Learned AO”) and the Deputy IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

3. Aggrieved by adjustments proposed by Ld.TPO, under various segments assessee raised objections before DRP, who upheld view of Ld.TPO. 3.1 On receipt of DRP directions, Ld.AO passed final impugned assessment order, wherein following additions were made  transfer pricing additions in software service development segment was made amounting to Rs.42,07,843/-  transfer pricing addition in research and development segment

M/S GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowing year-end provisions of INR 3,34,92,043 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and thus making a total adjustment of INR 43,26,92,603 to the total income of the Appellant. Grounds relating to transfer pricing matters 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DRP erred

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) of the act and order dated 27/9/2024 under section\n144C (5) of the act.\nThe learned AO/TPO/DRP have also erred both in\nlaw and on facts by adopting transactional net\nmargin method as the most appropriate method for\ndetermination of the arm's-length price of the\nimpugned transaction in the documents maintained\nunder section 92D