TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the above grounds and also all relief consequential thereto. b) The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before or during

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

u/s 133(6). Accordingly, we reject this plea. Thus, we find that this company is\nfunctionally comparable and accordingly the objections are\nrejected.” (Emphasis Supplied)\n15.4.\nFrom above it is clear that the Learned DRP had concluded that all\nthe activities carried on by the Assessee broadly fell into the ambit\nof software development services and therefore, this company

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)

271 of the Act 11. 11.1 The learned AO has erred in issuing a penalty notice to the Company consequent to above adjustments. 11.2 The learned AO ought to have observed that all necessary information and evidence on the expenditure in question as called for by the AO were duly disclosed and there has been no culpable negligence or willful

TAVANT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. Without prejudice, the additions and disallowances as made by the ld. Assessing Officer are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be deleted in total. 18. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act is initiated separately.[Addition Rs.33,00,000/-]” 2.2 Accordingly he added into the total income of the assessee the entire payments made to these two companies of Rs.33.00/- crores. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15 Directions issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts in not a) taking cognizance of the objections filed by the Appellant in IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 7 relation to the draft assessment order/TP Order issued

NTT DATA INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another.” 2. At the time of hearing, assessee has not pressed ground Nos.1 to 6.2. Hence, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. In Ground No.6.3(a) assessee seeks exclusion

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

133(6) of the Act, which tantamount to choosing secret comparable companies whose information was not available in public domain while preparing the TP documentation for the relevant financial year. 3.7 Application of related party transaction filter by applying an inappropriate interpretation of computing the filter and thereby accepting Persistent Systems Ltd and Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. as comparable

STMICROELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Act. 2. Ground Nos.1.1 to 1.13 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. Ground No.1.14 is as follows:- Software Development Segment ("SWD") 1.14.The learned

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

133(6) of the Act. C. Grounds of appeal relating to other matters 20. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact, by not providing credit of Minimum Alternate Tax while computing the total tax payable by the Appellant. 21. The learned AO has erred. in law and in fact. by restricting the credit for taxes deducted

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B V INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

133(6) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

M/S. LSI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

penalty proceedings The Assessee submits that based on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no basis for the AO to propose to initiate proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12 Relief a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the above grounds and also all relief consequential

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

271(1)(a) cannot he imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

B M MANJUNATHA GUPTA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

section 271 of the Act has not been complied with, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice to the above though not conceding for the sake of argument, the penalty levied is highly excessive and liable to be reduced substantially, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

RADISYS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY: 2005-06 is

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the IT Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation”. 3. It was submitted by the ld. DR of the revenue that the main issue has been set aside by the ld. CIT(A) to the file of the TPO with a direction to exclude those companies which

M/S LAM RESEARCH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

133(6) of the Act to obtain information which was not available in public domain and relying on the same for comparability purposes; 6. The learned AO / TPO and the Hon'ble DRIP have erred, in law and facts by rejecting certain comparable companies considered by the Appellant in the comparability analysis by applying different quantitative and qualitative filters

XLHEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based