DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

127,972,597 251,796,576 Nuance Inc. owns the intangible property rights in the products sold to customers. Thus, NTS India has no ownership right, legal or economic, on any intangible generated or on the outcome of any intangible generated or arising during the course of rendering of medical transcription services. Risk Analysis This section provides a discussion

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

KIRLOSKAR TOYOTA TEXTILE MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

Transfer Pricing- Circle 2(1), Bangalore (Teamed TPO') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and facts and liable to be quashed. TP related 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in making a TP adjustment in connection IT(TP)A No.271/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 25 with

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Price received 8,70,35,80,565/- Shortfall 84,58,60,310/- 9.3 The ld. A.R. submitted that the adjustment made by the TPO of Rs. 84,58,60,310/- in the Software Development Segment has IT(TP)A No.291/Bang/2022 Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 64 been adopted by the AO in the Draft assessment order

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

transfer. ii. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. iii. A question arises as to whether the tolerance limit is prospective from the date of its introduction or is retrospective? If it is retrospective, it is retrospective since when? iv. Amendment made in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by concluding that the lease rentals, if treated to be as revenue expenses would be liable to Tax Deduction at Source ("TDS") under section 1941 of the Act, without Page 50 of 65 IT(TP)A No.285/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore appreciating the fact that the expense does not warrant

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Transfer Pricing Officer' was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Under this provision, the onus of computing ALP of the international transactions in certain cases was shifted to the TPO, who was supposed to pass his order under sub-section (3). There was no separate time limit for passing of the order

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Price received Rs. 3,246.11 million Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs. 630.6 million 61. The DRP rejected all the contentions of the Assessee and upheld the TP order. The AO passed the final assessment order in line with the directions of the DRP in which the TP adjustment of Rs. 63,06,00,000/- was sustained and the assessee

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

section 127 of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said assessment order passed without valid jurisdiction ought to be quashed. 7. The learned AR submitted that once the net profit margin is accepted to be at arm's length by the TPO, it presupposes that the various components of income and expenditure are also at arm's length

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer of ownership of technical know-how to the Appellant. 29. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in contending that the know- how remains with the Appellant even after the termination of the agreement and a permanent platform is built, without appreciating the fact that the group companies continuously IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 55 develop the know

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transferred its Product Engineering Services business to L&T Technology Services Ltd. and wound up its subsidiary GDA Technologies Inc. Detailed submissions are placed at pages 50-59 and 437-451 of the paperbook. It is submitted that this company is consistently excluded from the final list of comparables in cases of assessee’s placed similar to the Appellant. Reliance

AB INBEV GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm’s Length Price with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned TPO, after determining the ALP suggested for an adjustment under ITeS segment for Rs.41,28,11,497/- and interest on receivables for Rs.84,04,860/-. Accordingly, the total adjustment suggested by the TPO after adjustment under

M/S. TOYOTA INDUSTRIES ENGINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2585/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

transfer pricing ('TP') adjustment to the cost relating to import of raw materials and components from the associated enterprises i.e., 28.47% and 16.06% of the total cost, with respect to the textile machinery manufacturing segment and auto components manufacturing segment respectively, in spite of the fact that the Learned Panel has allowed proportionate Adjustment. Textile machinery segment 11. That

UXC INDIA IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act and; (ii) disallowing amount of Rs.65,65,463/- claimed as depreciation on leasehold premises on the basis that the Assessee had not demonstrated that the same were put to use. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which, vide its directions dated 19.09.2019, partly allowed the objections raised by the Assessee

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 260-A of the Act was not maintainable. Thus, it is clear that the Hont>le High Court has also not ruled against the separate benchmarking of royalty. As noted by the TPO, in the following year i.e. A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal had held that royalty is to be benchmarked separately. Further, in the case of M/s. Toyota

PRASHANTH PARAMAHANS MANIK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

127 of the IT Act. 5. Upon transfer of the case to the Ld. AO, the Ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act. 6. The Ld. AO erred in not issuing show cause notice proposing the addition to be made in the assessment order. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds

KAYUM RAZAK DHANANI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

127 of the act was passed on 15/5/2018 centralising the case of the assessee. The notice under section 153A of the act was issued on 5/2/2019 in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 10 August 2019 at a total income of ₹ 27,333,410/–. Subsequently notice under section 143 (2) of the act was issued