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

107/- Arm’s Length Margin 36.49% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price @ 122.14% Rs.2,86,05,720/- IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 40 of 56 of operating cost 17.7.Price Received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price The price charged by the taxpayer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length price as under

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

107/- Arm’s Length Margin 36.49% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price @ 122.14% Rs.2,86,05,720/- IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 40 of 56 of operating cost 17.7.Price Received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price The price charged by the taxpayer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length price as under

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

107/- Arm’s Length Margin 36.49% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price @ 122.14% Rs.2,86,05,720/- IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 40 of 56 of operating cost 17.7.Price Received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price The price charged by the taxpayer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length price as under

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

price by the TPO and the adjustment made: Arm’s Length Mean Mark-up 29.40% Operating Cost Rs.129,89,30,000/- Arm’s Length Price @129.40% of cost Rs.168,08,20,000/- Price Received Rs.1,38,06,40,000/- Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.30,01,80,000/- 79. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell out as to what are the mandatory conditions 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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell out as to what are the mandatory conditions that

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

transfer pricing issues in the appeal filed by revenue Ground No.2-5 80. We note that revenue seeks inclusion of Infosys Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd. (SEG), Persistent Systems Ltd. and Tata Elxi Ltd. (seg), Sask and communications technology Ltd, RS software India Ltd. 81. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel submitted that these comparables anyways are to be excluded for functional

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")

Section 92CA of the Income- tax Act, 1961, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer in order to determine the Arm's Length Price after obtaining necessary approval. The Ld.TPO observed that the assessee had following international transaction with its AE for the year under consideration: Sl. Particulars Amount (in INR) No 1. Provision for software

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. In the case on hand, the assessee has not brought on record any fact to show that the current year data are not reflecting the correct uncontrolled comparable price. Therefore, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 6.1 Ground No.4 is regarding the adjustment for difference in accounting policies, depreciation adjustment, etc. 6.2 At the time

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

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.290/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 – 13

107 (Mum) is that: '37. On the issue as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is empowered to determine the arm's length price at "nil", we find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 352 (Bang.) of 2009, dated 20- 10- 2010] held that the assessee

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in selecting TNM Method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) as against the CUP Method followed by the Company resulting in an illogical comparison of financial data. 3. Without prejudice to CUP Method selected by the Company, the Learned TPO erred in determining Arm's Length

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in selecting TNM Method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) as against the CUP Method followed by the Company resulting in an illogical comparison of financial data. 3. Without prejudice to CUP Method selected by the Company, the Learned TPO erred in determining Arm's Length

M/S. WALVOIL FLUID POWER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

107. PAN: AAACW 5954E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CA Respondent by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR), ITAT, Bangalore. Date of hearing : 07.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

M/S MAXIM INDIA INTERGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

107). 14. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that an identical issue has been examined by the co- ordinate bench in the case of Brocade Communications Systems (P) Ltd (supra) and it was decided as under:- “47. In Ground No. 10 the assessee pointed out to the mistakes in computation

M/S. WATERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

107 (Mum) is that: '37. On the issue as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is empowered to determine the arm's length price at "nil", we find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 352 (Bang.) of 2009, dated 20-10- 2010] held that the assessee

M/S. WATERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

107 (Mum) is that: '37. On the issue as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is empowered to determine the arm's length price at "nil", we find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 352 (Bang.) of 2009, dated 20-10- 2010] held that the assessee

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section, including ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 48 of 126 the existence of any arbitral proceedings, information disclosed in the course of such arbitral proceedings, and any settlements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, and awards related thereto shall be considered confidential information