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

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves to leave or add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. The assessee also raised additional grounds of appeal vide

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

GOOGEL INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

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

144C and u/s.271(1)(c) respectively. ITA No.374 & 362/Bang/2013 Page 2 of 24 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing information technology and Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS) to its group company. Further, the assessee also acts as distributors for AdWords program in India. The assessee has service centre and offices located at Bangalore, Gurgaon, Hyderabad

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

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

144C and u/s.271(1)(c) respectively. ITA No.374 & 362/Bang/2013 Page 2 of 24 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing information technology and Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS) to its group company. Further, the assessee also acts as distributors for AdWords program in India. The assessee has service centre and offices located at Bangalore, Gurgaon, Hyderabad

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

C (Ground Floor to 6th Floor) Helios Business Park 150 Outer Ring Road DCIT Vs. Kadubeesanahalli Circle-3(1)(1) Bangalore 560 103 Bangalore Karnataka PAN NO : AACCG2435N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144C(5). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. c) Panel and Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in not demonstrating that the motive of the Appellant was to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in the international transaction, which is a pre- requisite condition to make any adjustment under

TEJU KIRAN HOLE NARSIPURA MURTHY,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

144C(1) of the Act. C. GROUNDS IN RELATION TO ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE IT ACT: 6. The CIT(A) and Ld AO have erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.1,89,60,040/- as 'unexplained investment' under section 69 of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('the Act'), pursuant IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 61 to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Bangalore (the 'Learned Panel') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) dated 17.10.2019 for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds stated here below are independent of, and without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/DRP has grossly erred in making adjustment

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), by the Income Tax Officer Ward 1- (1)(1) Bangalore ('ITO') be struck down as invalid, as the order is based on surmise and conjectures and hence is bad in law and on facts to the extent of disallowances by the learned ITO. 2. Transfer Pricing Grounds 2.1 Assessment and reference

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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. Page 5 of 40 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

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

144C of the Income-tax Act, T 961 ['the Act') is bad in law and on facts. 2. Addition of reimbursement received towards foreign exchange fluctuation loss on repayment of External Commercial Borrowing amounting to INR 4,88,45,724 a) The Assessing Officer {, AO'] erred in adding to the total income INR 4,88,45,724 for reimbursement received

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified in law. 10.Appellant craves leave to add, amend, substitute, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a company engaged in the business of development of graphics, media

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

144C(5) and the order passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA(3) of the Act, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, are not in accordance with the law and made in violation of the principles of equity and natural justice and are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case

GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

u/s 144C(5) of the Act dt. 28.12.2015. First, we take up assessee’s appeal in IT(TP)A No. 293/Bang/2016 2. In the memo of appeal, the assessee has raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal challenging the addition made on the issue of Transfer pricing adjustment as well as on corporate issues, we for the sake

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE INDIA EXPORT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

u/s 144C(5) of the Act dt. 28.12.2015. First, we take up assessee’s appeal in IT(TP)A No. 293/Bang/2016 2. In the memo of appeal, the assessee has raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal challenging the addition made on the issue of Transfer pricing adjustment as well as on corporate issues, we for the sake