M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

10. The CBDT in Circular No 4 of 2008 dated 28.04.2008 clarified in context of section 194I that the payer of rent need not deduct tax on the service tax component received along with the rent for the reason that the landlord is merely acting as a collecting agency for the Government and the same does not partake the character

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

10 of 71 143 (3). It is not in dispute that assessment passed under Section 143 (3) is a final assessment, after duly hearing the assessee and perusing the records. 29. However, curiously, the error that had crept in by mentioning of the incorrect Section in the proceeding was found out by the Revenue and, therefore, a corrigendum dated

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

10 of the grounds of appeal. During the year under consideration, the assessee reported following international transactions: - Export of Ayurvedic Medicaments and Manufacture and sale of finished goods - Rs.161,81,56,389 Web designing and Support services - Rs. 53,16,535 Reimbursement of expenses - Rs. 5,76,73,335 Export of semi-finished goods

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

6. Date by which order u/s. 92CA(3) was to be passed – on or before 28.01.2014 7. Date of passing the order u/s. 92CA(3) – 30.01.2015 15. Before us the Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Honda Trading Corporation Vs. DCIT (supra) Page 10 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 wherein

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

6. Date by which order u/s. 92CA(3) was to be passed – on or before 28.01.2014 7. Date of passing the order u/s. 92CA(3) – 30.01.2015 15. Before us the Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Honda Trading Corporation Vs. DCIT (supra) Page 10 of 17 IT(TP)A Nos. 548 & 699/Bang/2016 wherein

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

6 of 55 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and further where the assessing authority applied its mind and being satisfied with the claim had allowed the case of the assessee, the assessing authority could not have initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, after the end of 4 years. He submitted that an identical view

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

6 of 55 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and further where the assessing authority applied its mind and being satisfied with the claim had allowed the case of the assessee, the assessing authority could not have initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, after the end of 4 years. He submitted that an identical view

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

6 of 55 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and further where the assessing authority applied its mind and being satisfied with the claim had allowed the case of the assessee, the assessing authority could not have initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, after the end of 4 years. He submitted that an identical view

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

6 of 55 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and further where the assessing authority applied its mind and being satisfied with the claim had allowed the case of the assessee, the assessing authority could not have initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, after the end of 4 years. He submitted that an identical view

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

6. The next issue relates to the Transfer Pricing adjustment made in respect of goods sold to Associated Enterprises (AEs). During this year, the assessee reported following international transactions:- 1. Export of Ayurvedic Medicaments and Preparations -Rs.157,57,29,647 2. Export of semi-finished products - Rs. 3,49,64,905 2. Service income -Rs. 23,45,514 3. Reimbursement

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

6 to 8 of the assessment order are in the nature of “Furniture and fixtures” only, i.e., they are not “Plant & Machinery” as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO held that the rate of depreciation applicable to Furniture & Fixtures is only 10% and further additional depreciation cannot be allowed on furniture. Accordingly, the AO allowed depreciation @ 10% applicable

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

6. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, for the amount considered as revenue of the current year, the learned AO ought to allow consequential benefit in the subsequent years in which the same has been offered to tax. IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 41 of 61 B. Denial of TDS credit 1. The Learned

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

6. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, for the amount considered as revenue of the current year, the learned AO ought to allow consequential benefit in the subsequent years in which the same has been offered to tax. IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 41 of 61 B. Denial of TDS credit 1. The Learned

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

6. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, for the amount considered as revenue of the current year, the learned AO ought to allow consequential benefit in the subsequent years in which the same has been offered to tax. IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 41 of 61 B. Denial of TDS credit 1. The Learned

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133(6) to call for information from comparable companies and make suitable adjustment on account of capacity utilisation differences. • TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. IT(TP)A 693/ Bang/2017 dated 25 / 11 / 2021- relevant para 11 & 12 at page 3156-3166 of case law compendium. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

10. The next grievance projected by the Assessee in its appeal is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in not allowing any adjustment towards working capital differences. On this issue we have heard the rival submisSions. The relevant provisions of the Act in so far as comparability of international transaction with a transaction of similar nature entered

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

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

6. As regards the transfer pricing adjustment, brief facts are that the assessee, which is a contract manufacturer of medical equipments and components, is also rendering engineering services to the Group companies. During the relevant financial year, the assessee had entered into the following international transactions: • Import of raw materials for contract manufacturing activity: Rs.43,89,45,267/-. • Purchase