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:

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 and circumstances of the case and 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and also filed a petition for stay of recovery of tax. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld CIT(A), wherein it contended that the impugned assessment order is invalid as the same has been passed IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 14 of 71 in violation

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

92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. 7. Deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in reducing the foreign travel expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,594,864 and other foreign currency expenses of Rs 13,344 from the export turnover

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

92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. 26 IT(TP)A Nos.292/Bang/2014 & 1592/Bang/2012 27 IT(TP)A Nos.292/Bang/2014 & 1592/Bang/2012 15.Directions issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel [‘DRP’] a) The DRP has erred in law and facts in not taking cognizance of the objections filed by the Appellant in relation to the draft assessment order issued

M/S IKA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 482 of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the US regulations') also support the above. Regulation 1.482-1(d)(2) of the US regulation states as follows: "In order to be considered comparable to a controlled transaction, an uncontrolled transaction need not be identical to the controlled transaction, but must be sufficiently similar that it provides

INTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2843/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 144C(5) read with Rule 13 of the DRP Rules, 2009 dated 27.9.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: IT(TP)A No.2843/Bang/2017 M/s. Inteva Products India Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 10 General ground of appeal 1. Erred in assessing the total income at INR 12,58,91,068 as against declared nil income

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

92C(2) as well as working capital adjustment. 12.1 Ground No.13 regarding the reduction of foreign currency expenses from the export turnover. 12.2 We have heard the rival submissions and considered the relevant material on record. An identical issue has been considered and decided 22 IT(T.P)A No.1105 & 1259/Bang/2012 by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee

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

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

92C of the Act read with Rule IOD of the Rules. 1.18.4 The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO/ TPO have erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment at the entity level instead of restricting the adjustment to the cost of international transaction. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 2.1 The Honorable DRP and the Learned AO have erred

DMG MORI SEIKI INDIA MACHINES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

92C(2) of the Act available to the Appellant. 6 Interest under section 234B of the Act a) The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amounting to Rs 7,689,648. b) The learned AO has erred in levying excess interest under section 2348 of the Act amounting

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

92C(2) of the Act. 6 Grant of lower deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in reducing the travel expenses incurred in foreign currency amounting to Rs. 6,669,249 from the export turnover while computing the deduction under section

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the I.T.Act incorporating the above said TP adjustment proposed by the TPO. The Assessing Officer also made certain additions / disallowances on the corporate tax front. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Penal (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 26.12.2016 rejected the objections

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

penalty proceedings under\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act.”\nGrounds Nos. 1 to 13 raised by the Assessee are directed against\nthe transfer pricing addition. During the relevant previous year the\nAssessee provided software development services and back office\nsupport services to NTT DATA Group Companies which were utilized\nby the latter for providing services to end customers

MERCEDES- BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

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

92C of the Act; Grounds of appeal relating to general matters 12. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, by levying interest of Rs.16,422,055,Rs. 560,081and Rs. 425,858 under section 234B, 234C and 234Dof the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. 13. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings

ASST.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

92C of the Act read with rule 10D of income Tax Rules, 1962. C. Corporate Tax issues 25. The learned AO / DRP have erred in law and on facts in not following CBDT Circular no. 14(XI-35) of 1955 dated April 11, 1955 by not granting the relief claimed by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings in relation

XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

92C of the Act read with rule 10D of income Tax Rules, 1962. C. Corporate Tax issues 25. The learned AO / DRP have erred in law and on facts in not following CBDT Circular no. 14(XI-35) of 1955 dated April 11, 1955 by not granting the relief claimed by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings in relation

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(( c) of the Act cannot be subject matter of appeal. Ground No.9 & 10 are general in nature and calls for no specific adjudication. Ground No.4 is with regard to exclusion of foreign currency expenses and communication charges from the export turnover/total turnover. Ground No.5 is with regard to the Revenue authorities in not allowing

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271A, 271AA and 271BA of the Act. 8. Relief 8.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto. 8.2. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise