MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 10 Crore or more in an earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal.  The Instruction further goes on to clarify three situations in which the AO can refer the matter to the TPO. They are as under: 7.7 The Instruction further goes

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)

transfer pricing, the assessee had considered the segmental financials relating to transactions with its AE. The TPO rejected the segmental financials of the assessee and worked out the entity level margins of the assessee while arriving at the TP adjustment. The TPO rejected the segmental financials on the by stating that “The taxpayer has contested the above margin computation

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

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

transfer pricing purposes. Guidance on comparability adjustments is found in paragraphs 3.47-3.54 and in the Annexure to Chapter III of the TPG. A revised version of this guidance was approved by the Council of the OECD on 22 July 2010. The Tribunal referred to Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid OECD guidelines, wherein the need for working capital

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

transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore, in keeping with the OECD guidelines, endeavor should be made to bring in comparable companies for the purpose of broad comparison. Therefore, the working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 28. In view of the above, we remit the issue to the file

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

Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing and answering such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing risk parameter. On the other hand, the case was selected for limited scrutiny one of the reasons being mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s. 40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR. From a reading of these reasons, we are of the view that no prudent business person properly instructed in law would have inferred

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

114. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act dated 12.08.2013 was issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that international transaction with the AEs exceeded the prescribed limit, therefore, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length

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) and the claim of high-end service provider, we note that there is no inherent contradiction as claimed by the assessee. From the information collected u/s.13:3(6), it is confirmed by the company that it is engaged in provision of customised software development services and rot in any activity relating to technological innovation. The functional aspect

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication

M/S ESSILOR INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.29/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) & It(Tp)A No.227/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Essilor India Pvt.Ltd. No.71/1, Brigade Plaza, 6Th Floor, S C Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9. … Appellant Pan:Aaace 4623 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

114,31,94,600 other income) Operating Cost (excluding additional 95,08,53,928 advertisement expenses of Rs.8,86,67,743/-) Profit 19,23,40,672 OP/OC 20.22% Additional advertisement expenses 8,86,67,743 incurred for promotion of brand on behalf of the AE Arm’s Length Price NIL Reimbursement received for advertisement expenses incurred for brand promotion

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), he has excluded the other income of the assessee as well as all the comparables while working out the operating margins. This action is uniform and as such the assessee and the comparables are on the same footing. The assessee has itself shown 'service tax refund' as non-operating income in its financials

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

114/- to Rs. 1,40,13,901/-. The DRP vide its order dated 23.05.2019 rejected the grounds of the assessee relating to Transfer Pricing issues. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO passed as per the directions of the DRP in the second round. We will adjudicate the issues raised

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

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

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, 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

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), 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