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

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

92C of the Act; Grounds of appeal relating to general matters 13. The learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, by levying interest of Rs.24,15,703 and Rs.52,160 under section 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. 14. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

271 of the Act. 11. Other grounds 11.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 409,68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant

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

92C(2) of the Act; 29. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act Erred in charging of interest under section 234B of the Act; 30. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271

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

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

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

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

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

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

BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

92C (3) of the Act, for rejection of TP analysis of the Appellant and for independent determination of arm's length price. 9.5. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9.6. The learned AO has erred in computing interest under Section 234B on the assessed

M/S MARVELL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2013-14

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of IT Act as per the directions of DRP. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. “1. The Assessment Order dated September 11, 2017 (served on September 15, 2017), issued by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -4(1)(2), Bangalore ("learned AO") under Section 143(3) read with Section

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

MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, M/s.Microland Ltd

Bench: Shrib.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2778/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S.Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Form Erly Known As Novell Software Development (India) Pvt.Ltd.) ‘Bagmane Tech Park’, D Block, ‘Laurel’ 65/2, C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bengaluru-560093. … Appellant Pan:Aaacn 6992 K Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] Dated 27/10/2017 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Dated 18/09/2017. It(Tp)A No.2778/Bang/2017 Page 2 Of 20 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s 133(6). The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the actions of the TPO. That the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in considering o) Provision for Doubtful Debts as a non-operating item while computing the margins. The Ld. Panel erred in upholding the same. 3. Determination of arm's length price relating to IT Enabled Services a) That the Ld.AO

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

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

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

3 approach as depicted in Ground 25 above, when the said approach has been upheld in Appellant’s own case by the jurisdictional bench of Honourable ITAT for AY 2015- 16. 27. The Honourable DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law in not considering the detailed submissions of the Appellant that even after performing an AMP expense intensity

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