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:

u/s 144C(5) of the Act ('the Impugned order') inter-alia on the following grounds: Page 2 of 16 IT(IT)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO/ DRP has: Reopeninq under section 147 of the Act 1. Erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income

RAHIL MAHESHKUMAR NIZAMUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BLR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

section 274 rws 271 of the Act as to whether the penalty proceedings is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below are not justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 96,41,529/- u/s

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

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

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the same and thereby acting contrary to the provisions of section 144C of the Act and hence, the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and merits to be quashed. IT(IT)A No. 2888/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 22 Modified Specific Ground of Appeal

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:

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) along with draft assessment order and thereby making the same as final order and thus, not following the provisions of section 144C of the Act and hence, the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and merits to be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit

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

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

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

5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power of the Dispute Resolution Panel to enhance the variation shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to consider any matter arising out of the assessment proceedings relating to the draft order, notwithstanding

ABB INDUSTRIES FZE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.2101/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Abb Industries Fze, C/O Abb India Ltd., 21St Floor, World Trade Centre, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram(West), Bengaluru-560 055. … Appellant Pan:Aajca 9766 H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 28/09/2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 28/09/2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(IT)A No.2101/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 9 “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of and without prejudice to one another

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 us. 5

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

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

5) of the Act on 31.08.2017; observing at para 6 thereof that the assessee vide letter dated 30.05.2017 has withdrawn its objection with respect to the TP matters after entering into a unilateral Advance Pricing Arrangement (APA) with the CBDT on 27.04.2017; wherein the year under consideration i.e., Assessment Year 2013-14 is covered under

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. ESSILOR MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Transfer Pricing Grounds 10. The impugned order has erred in making an addition of Rs. 83,421,123 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Transfer Pricing Grounds 10. The impugned order has erred in making an addition of Rs. 83,421,123 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Transfer Pricing Grounds 10. The impugned order has erred in making an addition of Rs. 83,421,123 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment