GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

Method (CPM). In the absence of such adjustment, a mere application of CPM on comparables with different functional profile will not be in tune with the TP Rules. Therefore, as CPM is adopted as the MAM, the assessee should be allowed adjustment on actual basis, which will reliable and accurate, as stipulated in Rule 10C(2). Needless

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

disallowed such provision for stock obsolescence on the ground that there is no such deduction available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that section 145A of the Act provides that inventory is to be valued as per the accounting method regularly followed by the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that the method of accounting regularly employed

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.582/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Lenovo (India) P. Ltd, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenaundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru 560 037 .. Appellant Pan : Aabci3372H V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -4(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. Chandrashekar, Cit Heard On : 19.05.2016 Pronounced On : 30.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

TP)A.582/Bang/2015 Page - 13 method followed by it for provisioning and it was the onus of the assessee to produce historical data to prove such method. Having not done that, as per the Ld. DR, it could not be said that assessee was following a scientific method. Thus according to him, lower authorities were justified in disallowing

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

method, by which,— IT(TP)A No.2680/Bang/2017 Page 15 of 50 (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard

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

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

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

Disallowance of advertisement and business promotion expenditure. (viii) Other ground regarding initiation of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. TP adjustment relating to manufacturing segment : 4. In the manufacturing segment, the tax payer applied internal CUP method

SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

method. The Ld.TPO considered 9 companies and proposed the TP adjustment. The Ld.TPO considered the entity level margin of the assessee and computed operating cost at Rs.13,37,61,729/- wherein the Ld.TPO considered the revenue received by AE for rendering Page 31 IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2017 software development services. The average net profit operating margin to operating cost

ITO WARD - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

method, and OP/sales as PLI, and computed assessee’s margin at 2.26%. The Ld.TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹6,63,78,224/- for SDR segment. 3. On receipt of the Transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/02/2015 incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment aggregating ₹.21,43,81,331/-. The Page

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

method, and OP/sales as PLI, and computed assessee’s margin at 2.26%. The Ld.TPO proposed an adjustment of ₹6,63,78,224/- for SDR segment. 3. On receipt of the Transfer pricing order under 92CA, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/02/2015 incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment aggregating ₹.21,43,81,331/-. The Page

M/S. RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

method of accounting followed by an Assessee, the disallowance u/s.43B of the Act for AY 2015-16 is proper. However, since the same amount was offered to tax in AY 2016-17 and taxed in that year, there would be double addition and therefore the proper course would be to direct that the income offered in subsequent year

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 5 of 85 and 10% of salary cost of CFC amounting to Rs. 8,06,938, Rs. 24,38,481 and Rs. 4,70,713 respectively totaling to Rs. 37,16,131 as the expenditure relatable to exempt income and the same was disallowed voluntarily in the return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore Page 5 of 85 and 10% of salary cost of CFC amounting to Rs. 8,06,938, Rs. 24,38,481 and Rs. 4,70,713 respectively totaling to Rs. 37,16,131 as the expenditure relatable to exempt income and the same was disallowed voluntarily in the return of income

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance project spirit report. Rs.28,06,21,440 on DDT and interest of Rs.15,43,41,791 u/s 115P of the Act. 8. Grounds of appeal relating to short credit of 37,78,149 tax deducted at source / tax collected at source – Rs.37,78,149 9. Grounds of appeal relating to levy of 2,03,53,26,920 interest

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

M/S. TRIANZ HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.2639/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner #165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Magnum, Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bennerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 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 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assesee Has Raised 36 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal. However, Learned Ar Had Argued Only Following Six Issues:-

Method (MAM) (grounds 11 to 25) – Alternative grounds. 2 IT(TP)A No.2639/Bang/2019. M/s Trianz Holdings Private Limited. (iii) Interest on outstanding receivables (grounds 26 to 31) Corporate Tax Issues (iv) 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

TP)A No.2471/Bang/2017 total turnover of AEs. The DRP also upheld the addition on account of the payment charged by AE to Sasken Inc., towards invoicing and collection from the company in Korea being GE Ultrasound under profit split method and determined 25% of the payment to words royalty. 2.10 The DRP upheld the disallowance

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

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

TP)A No.281/Bang/2021 Page 43 of 63 9.6 In regard to the disallowance of excess provision for warranty the assesse challenged before the ITAT against the final assessment order. The ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and filed written synopsis and he submitted the assessee has maintained scientific method