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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case by charging and computing interest under section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961. IT(TP)A Nos.443,526/Bang/2016, No.535/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 35 The above

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case by charging and computing interest under section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961. IT(TP)A Nos.443,526/Bang/2016, No.535/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 35 The above

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

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ['the Rules']. b) The AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting one method ['TNMM'] and selecting another method ['CUP'] as the most appropriate method without providing reasons to the Appellant for rejecting the method adopted by the Appellant. c) On the facts

M/S BLUE COAT NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.78/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 30.10.2018. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- IT(TP)A No.11/Bang/2019 Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 29 A. General Ground 1. That the order of the learned, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Act. Page 9 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 13. Other grounds 13.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 364,20,56,993 under section 234B of the Act. 14. Relief 14.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Act. Page 9 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 13. Other grounds 13.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 364,20,56,993 under section 234B of the Act. 14. Relief 14.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant

SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (The Rules'), on account of mere difference of interpretation in selection of filters, is without any basis. 2.2. The Hon'ble Panel erred in upholding the order of the Ld. TPO/NeAC , wherein the Ld. TPO erred in law while interpreting the provisions of Rule

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:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10.Relief a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such reliefs arising from the above grounds and also all reliefs consequential thereto. b) The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

XLHEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Act. 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee-company is before us in the present appeal. The assessee raised the following grounds. “1. That, the final assessment order framed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned AO') pursuant to the directions

PAYNE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). b) The AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting one method ('TNMM') and selecting another method ('CUP') as the most appropriate method without providing reasons to the Appellant for rejecting the method adopted by the Appellant. c) The AO/TPO erred on facts

EIT SERVICES 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 Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- The Appellant submits that: 1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO' for short) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('the DRP. for short), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

271 of the Act 11. 11.1 The learned AO has erred in issuing a penalty notice to the Company consequent to above adjustments. 11.2 The learned AO ought to have observed that all necessary information and evidence on the expenditure in question as called for by the AO were duly disclosed and there has been no culpable negligence or willful

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without concluding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has not acted in good faith and has not exercised due diligence.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed revised return of income electronically for the assessment year 2016-17 on 29/03/2018 declaring

ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence. 2.3 Applying the provisions of Rule 10B(5) read with Rule 10CA(2) and Rule 10CA(4) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') while undertaking the fresh benchmarking analysis. 2.4 Rejecting the Company's contentions against that the use of information under section

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 61 initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 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

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal