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. 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

3 of his order under Section 92CA of the Act, the TPO has accepted IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 33 of 71 that the assessee has its own range of products and the AEs only choose from the standard products which are manufactured by the assessee for the Indian Market. In our view

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

3) of the Act. Therefore, the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act is for assessment of income and not reassessment, as is normally understood. Since no assessment had taken place and no opinion has been formed on the issue on which the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee's income liable

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

92C(3) based on ‘enhanced’ income. We therefore find merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld.Counsel in this regards. 45. The Ld.Counsel before us submitted that assessee does not have any other income other than the income generated from the units that is eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. It is also been submitted that

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue 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 Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

92C, the TPO is required to pass the order determining the ALP of the international transactions. No time limit was initially given for the passing of order by the TPO. It is only by the Finance Act, 2007, that sub-section (3A) was inserted providing time limit for the passing an order by the TPO. No amendment has been

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue 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 Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

92C, the TPO is required to pass the order determining the ALP of the international transactions. No time limit was initially given for the passing of order by the TPO. It is only by the Finance Act, 2007, that sub-section (3A) was inserted providing time limit for the passing an order by the TPO. No amendment has been

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. 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. 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. 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

3 years for passing the assessment order from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. In this case, admittedly, the income is assessable for assessment year 2009-2010. Thus, three years period expired on 31.03.2013. However the assessment order was admittedly passed on 28.3.2014. Therefore, it is beyond the period prescribed

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

section 92C(3) of the Act by contending that the data used in the computation of the ALP is not reliable or correct; despite the fact that the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has selected same comparable companies as selected by Appellant in TP documentation, ii) rejecting the segment level margin of the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons

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

3 of his order under Section 92CA of the Act, the TPO has accepted that the assessee has its own range of products and the AEs only choose from the standard products which are manufactured by the assessee for the Indian Market. In our view, the TPO’s understanding of a contract manufacturer will make every manufacturer of goods

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

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and upholding the economic analysis carried out by the learned TPO during the assessment proceedings. 4. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRP have erred in not considering

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and upholding the economic analysis carried out by the learned TPO during the assessment proceedings. 4. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRP have erred in not considering

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and upholding the economic analysis carried out by the learned TPO during the assessment proceedings. 4. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRP have erred in not considering

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

3,093,153,514, as\nagainst returned income of INR 1,675,425,240;\nTransfer pricing grounds\n2.\nLd. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of\nthe Hon'ble DRP, erred in making addition of INR 1,040,059,562 to\ntotal income of Appellant on pretext that price charged was lower\nthan arm's length price determined

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