M/S. ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

penalty implications in case of noncompliance. The primary onus of proving arm's length price of the transaction lies with the taxpayer. Indian transfer

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

transfer pricing adjustment. When the matter reached ITAT, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO to consider the additional details filed by the petitioner before the ITAT. Accordingly the TPO passed a fresh order. Thereafter, the assessing officer passed a final assessment order, instead of passing draft assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court held the same

MATCHMOVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(3), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, ground no. 4 of the Appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.Ittpa No. 2255/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

Transfer Pricing Grounds: 3. Adjustment on account of re-determination of ALP for software development services rendered by the Appellant to its AEs amounting to INR 10,25,38,320 3.1. Erred by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the Act and the corresponding Rules, conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination

RANDOX LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Transfer Pricing Officer has referred to the Notes to the Randox Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. fixed asset schedule forming part of the Balance Sheet of the assessee. On a perusal of the said Note, it becomes clear that, though, the assessee was intending to set-up a manufacturing unit in India and for that purpose has acquired lease hold land

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Transfer Pricing Officer has referred to the Notes to the Randox Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. fixed asset schedule forming part of the Balance Sheet of the assessee. On a perusal of the said Note, it becomes clear that, though, the assessee was intending to set-up a manufacturing unit in India and for that purpose has acquired lease hold land

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer Pricing Manual for developing countries, 2012, in Para 6.2.20.2 and 6.1.3.3 lays down selection of MAM and the relevant guidelines are as under: “6.2.20 When to Use the Cost Plus Method 6.2.20.1. The cost plus method is typically applied in cases involving the intercompany sale of tangible property where the related party manufacturer performs limited manufacturing functions

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEM (I) (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer Pricing Manual for developing countries, 2012, in Para 6.2.20.2 and 6.1.3.3 lays down selection of MAM and the relevant guidelines are as under: “6.2.20 When to Use the Cost Plus Method 6.2.20.1. The cost plus method is typically applied in cases involving the intercompany sale of tangible property where the related party manufacturer performs limited manufacturing functions

GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer Pricing Manual for developing countries, 2012, in Para 6.2.20.2 and 6.1.3.3 lays down selection of MAM and the relevant guidelines are as under: “6.2.20 When to Use the Cost Plus Method 6.2.20.1. The cost plus method is typically applied in cases involving the intercompany sale of tangible property where the related party manufacturer performs limited manufacturing functions

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

Transfer Pricing adjustment found that the functions discharged by the tax payer, assets deployed, risks assumed need not be separated out in order to distinguish its own cost and the comparable cost if IT(TP)A No.146/Bang/2015 Page 49 of 52 done through third parties, when all the activities led to clinical trials conducted on behalf of the AE, which

M/S. RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer has referred to the Notes to the Randox Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. fixed asset schedule forming part of the Balance Sheet of the assessee. On a perusal of the said Note, it becomes clear that, though, the assessee was intending to set-up a manufacturing unit in India and for that purpose has acquired lease hold land

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

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 28. The TPO is directed to follow the directions as given above in the order for AY 2012-13 in the present AY also. No arguments were advanced on Gr.No.12 and the same is therefore dismissed. Ground 13: Disallowance of prior period expenses

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

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

transfer pricing adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. b) The AO/TPO erred in law and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming non-application of multiple-year data while computing the margin of alleged comparable companies. 4 Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies, by the AO/TPO a) The AO/TPO erred in law and on facts in not allowing

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. 3. Now we reproduce the grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 as under: Ay 2015-16: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. I. Transfer Pricing

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. 3. Now we reproduce the grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 as under: Ay 2015-16: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. I. Transfer Pricing

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing addition of INR.62,88,86,271/- is set aside Ground No.1.1 to 1.7 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.2 25. Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee pertains to initiation of penalty

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

Transfer Pricing officer only and he has totally ignored the directions issued by Ld DRP, which could not have been done by him, in view of the mandatory provisions of sec.144C(13), which requires him to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the directions issued by Ld DRP. 10. The Ld A.R also relied upon the decision rendered