M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is premature. 4. With regard to the legal issue relating to validity of the assessment order, the Ld A.R submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO beyond the time limit IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 prescribed in sec.153 of the Act. We notice that though

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V. INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU 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. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) 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 Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

144C(1) of the Act dated 25/02/2015 and along with demand notice issued under section 156 and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. Ratio of Hon'ble Madras High Court has expressed the view that such orders passed by the Ld.AO without following due process of law are liable to be set aside. Thus

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:

144C(1) of the Act dated 25/02/2015 and along with demand notice issued under section 156 and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. Ratio of Hon'ble Madras High Court has expressed the view that such orders passed by the Ld.AO without following due process of law are liable to be set aside. Thus

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

144C(1) of IT(TP)A No.430/Bang/2016 the Act dated 25/02/2015 and along with demand notice issued under section 156 and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. Ratio of Hon'ble Madras High Court has expressed the view that such orders passed by the Ld.AO without following due process of law are liable

NDS LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P) A. No.1515/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Nds Limited – India Branch Office, Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax, No.9, Ashford Park View, (International Taxation), 80 Ft Road, Koramangala Iii Block, Circle 1 (1), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 034 Pan Aabcn 2524L Appellant Respondent.

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) dated October 25, 2010 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 (ie ITA 1515 of 2010) (copy of acknowledgement for filing the appeal is enclosed as Annexure 1). Subsequent to filing of above appeal, with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment carried out as per above orders, NDS India’s Head Office

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

penalty of Rs.65,500/- u/s 271FA on the assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before us and has submitted that the order passed by the authority below is required to be satisfied and it was enquired by the Bench as to how the order passed by the authority Director of Income-tax (Intelligence

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

Section 144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order by correctly mentioning that the same is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. The assessee

SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) & 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dt.13.10.2011 in pursuance of and in conformity with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (‘DRP’) u/s.144C(5) r.w.s. 144C(8) of the Act vide order dt.21.9.2011. IT(TP)A No.1286/Bang/2011 2 2. The facts

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)

penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal. IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page

CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 92CA by the TPO vide order 14,59,70,160 dated 22.10.2019 Adjustment as per DRP order 14,78,43,560 Addition in adjustment consequent to Order of DRP 18,73,400 4. Thus, an addition of Rs.14,78,43,56/- was made to the income of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 144C as per the directions of DRP. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee along with modified grounds no. 16 and 25 are as under:- Page 2 of 20 IT(TP)A No. 830/Bang/2017 “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Inteva Products India Automotive Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully

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

M/S. FIRST ADVANTAGE GLOBAL OPERATING CENTER PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

144C(13) of the Act vide order dated 25.10.2017 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.14,45,66,443/-; which included TP adjustment of Rs.2,21,84,959/-. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the final order of assessment dated 25.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14 has filed this appeal, wherein it has raised the following grounds: General

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] and against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru for the assessment year 2015-16 u/s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 are reproduced as under

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] and against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru for the assessment year 2015-16 u/s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 are reproduced as under

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

144C of the Act, in framing a fresh assessment and in doing so, failed to appreciate that the TP adjustments incorporated on the basis 1.9 Without prejudice, even if the IAO passed by the AO is held to be valid in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the Appellant's ground that no adjustments can be made

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

144C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (" the Act") for the captioned Assessment Year ("AY"). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may be kindly considered independent of each other. 1. Ground 1: Income earned by the Appellant erroneously characterized to be in the nature of Fees for Included Services/ Fees for Technical Services under

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

144C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (" the Act") for the captioned Assessment Year ("AY"). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may be kindly considered independent of each other. 1. Ground 1: Income earned by the Appellant erroneously characterized to be in the nature of Fees for Included Services/ Fees for Technical Services under