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

revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant

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

revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant

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

revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant

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

revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant

M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Transfer Pricing The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) [PCIT]j erred in invoking the powers under Sec. 263 to extend the statutory time limit given to the AO/TPO in completing assessment, which is illegal exercise of power; 2. The PCIT erred in invoking the power under Section 263

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

u/s 234B and 234C of the Act against legally untenable adjustments. 13. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 12. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee did ot press for adjudication of Grd.No.2. Grd.No.1 is general and calls

M/S. WIELAND METALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

263/- in addition to the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,09,89,945/- proposed by the TPO. 5. On appeal, DRP issued its directions u/s 144C(5) on 26-07-2019 confirming the additions proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order. Accordingly, the AO vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 92CA of the Act dated

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

u/s 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

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, 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 : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page 19 of 42 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, 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 : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page 19 of 42 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed

BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

revision\nproceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, the reasons cited by the ld. PCIT primarily is that\nthe assessee had received certain interest income on investment in banks which are\nrequired to be added to the income of the assessee u/s. 56 of the Act as held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative sale

MFX INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

revised version of this guidance was approved by the Council of the OECD on 22 July 2010. In paragraph 2 of these guidelines it has been explained as to what is comparability adjustment. The guideline explains that when applying the arm's length principle, the conditions of a controlled transaction (i.e. a transaction between a taxpayer and an associated enterprise

BARRACUDA NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 92CA in respect of software development segment of the Taxpayer's International Transactions.” Thus a sum of Rs.1,47,11,060/- was added to the total income of the Assessee on account of determination of ALP for provision of SWD services by the Assessee to its AE. 6. The Assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against

M/S. BORQS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 92CA in respect of software development segment of the Taxpayer's International Transactions.” Thus a sum of Rs.2,78,16,697/- was added to the total income of the Assessee on account of determination of ALP for provision of SWD services by the Assessee to its AE. 6. The Assessee filed objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) against

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.” 4.14 Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83), wherein held as under: “There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.” 4.14 Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83), wherein held as under: “There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263

ADARSHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT SIRSI,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, the reasons\ncited by the ld. PCIT primarily is that the assessee had received\ncertain interest income on investment in banks which are required\nto be added to the income of the assessee u/s. 56 of the Act as\nheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Co-\noperative

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not allowed. 7.5 Now before proceedings further, it is apposite here to mention the relevant provision of Income Tax Act which is reproduced below:- Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The [ [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record

CITRIX R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

u/s 92CA to the Arm's Length Price, at Rs.51,31,30,728/- for SWD segment and Rs.16,58,20,569/- for ITES segment, being the shortfall. Page 10 of 53 IT(TP)A No. 220/Bang/2021 2.8 On receipt of the transfer pricing order the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 20/12/2019. In the draft assessment order the Ld.AO