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

Transfer pricing adjustment without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent as available under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act Erred in computing the arm's length price of the international transactions, without taking into account the benefit of +/- 5 per cent variation from the mean where it is within the range, which is permitted and opted

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1) BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED, VIRGIN ISLANDS

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

price charged in such transaction was at arms length. The assessee also submitted that there is no non-disclosure of material facts at the time of assessment proceedings and also there was no gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee to invoke the penalty provisions u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

ALCON LABORATORIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271AA and 271G of the Act: 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, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing

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

transfer pricing under the I.T. Act. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the authorities below and remit the issue to the record of the Assessing Officer / TPO for deciding the matter afresh by 21 IT(T.P)A No.1105 & 1259/Bang/2012 considering the segment-wise data of the assessee

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. 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

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. All the above grounds may be considered independent and without prejudice of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable