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)

92C(3) of the Act and not accepting the TP documentation/economic analysis which was undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination of the arm’s length price of the impugned international transactions. On the facts and circumstances

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MISYS SOFTWARE (I) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the C

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P.) A. No.1110/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), Bangalore-560 001 …. Appellant. Vs. M/S. Misys Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., Eagle Ridge, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071. ….. Respondent. Pan Aaack 9067G C.O. No.20/Bang/2012 (In I.T(T.P.) A. No.1110/Bang/2011) (By Assessee)

68,601. (ii) Reimbursement of Expenses paid / payable: Rs.25,91,064. (iii) Reimbursement of expenses received / receivable:Rs.2,04,13,805. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA of the Act dt.2.4.2008 in respect of the aforesaid international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AEs (supra), making an adjustment of Rs.6

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

92C(2).” 11.1 Facts of the case are that the Assessee entered into sponsorship agreement dated 23.06.2015 with United East Bengal Football Team Private Limited (“UEBFT”) for sponsorship fee of IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 17 of 70 Rs.9,25,00,000/- for promotion of “United Breweries Brand” and “Kingfisher Brand”. In terms of the agreement

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

2) (viib) and Sections and 92BA and 92C were also amended by the Finance Act, 2012. These amended provisions were incorporated in the statute book primarily to introduce the concept of arm’s length pricing in share transactions particularly in relation to closely held companies. For the purpose of adjudication of these appeals, however, reproduction of these provisions

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

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 prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

68. In all these appeals, there is one issue with regard to the action of the Revenue authorities in not giving the benefit of 5% standard deduction to the arithmetic mean profit margin of comparables before comparing the same with the Assessee’s margin as per the second proviso to section 92C(2

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

68. In all these appeals, there is one issue with regard to the action of the Revenue authorities in not giving the benefit of 5% standard deduction to the arithmetic mean profit margin of comparables before comparing the same with the Assessee’s margin as per the second proviso to section 92C(2

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

68. In all these appeals, there is one issue with regard to the action of the Revenue authorities in not giving the benefit of 5% standard deduction to the arithmetic mean profit margin of comparables before comparing the same with the Assessee’s margin as per the second proviso to section 92C(2

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

68. In all these appeals, there is one issue with regard to the action of the Revenue authorities in not giving the benefit of 5% standard deduction to the arithmetic mean profit margin of comparables before comparing the same with the Assessee’s margin as per the second proviso to section 92C(2

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

68 of PB-II), which was also adopted by the TPO in his show cause notice (Page 84 of PB-I). The segmental results i.e., results pertaining to software services segment of this company was: Segmental Operating Revenues Rs.63,71,32,544 Segmental Operating Expenses Rs.51,75,13,211 Operating Profit Rs.11,96,19,333 OP/TC

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

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

92C(3)(a), (b) and (c) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the arm’s length interest is determined by following CUP method wherein the interest rate is determined under the circumstances in which the tax payer and its associated enterprises are operating i.e. ;what is the interest that would

PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CR5(1) (2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.145/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Parametric Technology (India) Circle 5(1)(2), Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Phoenix Towers, 16, Museum Road, Bangalore-560 025 Pan Aabcp 2629J Appellant Respondent. I.T. (T.P) A. No.226/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Assessee) Assessee By : S/Shri Ajith Tolani & Darpan Kirpalani, C.As. Revenue By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, By The Assessee & Revenue, Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Issued Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.28.11.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

68,55,668; which included T.P. Adjustment of Rs.1,53,85,072 to the returned income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11 dt.30.12.2014, both the assessee and revenue have preferred appeals before the Tribunal raising the following grounds :- 3.1 The Grounds raised in the assessee's appeal are as under :- 1. That the order

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

68,62,53,945 3,15,04,815 Support Services 3. Interest On 7,28,17,800 NIL 7,28,17,800 Delayed Receivables Total 131,09,67,756 3.9. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 04/12/2018, incorporating the proposed TP addition of INR.1.310,967,756/-. Further, the Assessing Officer also proposed following additions (a) addition of INR.364

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

2 : 38. Now coming to the 2nd part of disallowance by the Ld. AO under section 10A regarding the voluntary income offered by assessee for computing the transfer pricing adjustment. 39. On one hand, it is the assessee’s contention that provisions of section 92(4) will not be applicable in this case as the transfer Page

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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

92C of the Act. The TPO in the case on hand has applied CPM as the MAM. Rule 10B(1)(c) deals with the determination of ALP as per CPM and the same is extracted hereunder :— "(c) cost plus method, by which,— (i) the direct and indirect costs of production incurred by the enterprise in respect of property transferred

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

92C of the Act. 5. In support of the assessee’s claim that the price charged by it for services rendered to its AE was at arms’ length, the assessee filed a report as required by the provisions of section 92E of the Act in Form 3EB together with detailed analysis. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM