ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

C of the Income Tax Act) upon reference from the Assessing officer (Section - 92CA of the Income Tax Act). Deviation from confines of any of the above constituent elements under the law pulverizes the role and jurisdiction of a Transfer Pricing Officer. Impliedly it is not the role and jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer to transgress

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

C of the Income Tax Act) upon reference from the Assessing officer (Section - 92CA of the Income Tax Act). Deviation from confines of any of the above constituent elements under the law pulverizes the role and jurisdiction of a Transfer Pricing Officer. Impliedly it is not the role and jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer to transgress

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

13 ITR (Trib) 422 (Mumbai) (page 432) : "We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of the arm's length price of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'nil' is his perception that the asses see did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts of IT(TP)A.1481/B/2010

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2009-10 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Unit 1, Plot No.78, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Bangalore-560 100. Circle 7(1)(1), Pan : Aaact 4660 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that sufficient explanation was offered by the Appellant to explain the bona fides of its claim and reason for non-filing of appeal against the assessment order. Page 3 of 13 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of the learned

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. 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

13 of 71 contention would be misreading the intention of the Parliament in enacting Section 292B and Section 144-C.” The facts prevailing in the above said case is totally different from the facts available in the case before us. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessing officer has consciously passed the draft assessment order

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Pricing Page 15 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub- section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Pricing Page 15 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub- section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred

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

13 of 33 (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value

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

section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act. 10 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. 3.17 He further submitted that as per the development agreement entered by the assessee on 03.06.2013, the land owners have promised to transfer an agreed portion of land to the developer. The assessee in turn has promised to construct and transfer a share in the constructed property

M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

13) Due date for passing final assessment order u/s 153(1) r.w.s 3rd proviso to the said 31.03.2012 section. 6. To adjudicate the addition ground, the relevant statutory provisions have to be seen. IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 45 Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under

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.

1] 2. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation by the learned Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing — Range 4(2) — Mumbai (learned TPO') and in upholding the adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant in respect of manufacturing activity of the Appellant. [corresponding to Ground

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.

1] 2. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation by the learned Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing — Range 4(2) — Mumbai (learned TPO') and in upholding the adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant in respect of manufacturing activity of the Appellant. [corresponding to Ground

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1539/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited., Income Tax, No.41, Bhimenahalli, MN Halli Post, Circle – 7(1)(1), Manchanayakanahalli B.O, Bidadi, Bangalore. Ramanagara. PAN – AAECT 1871 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Grounds Nos. 1 to 13 raised by the Assessee are directed against the transfer pricing

SAN DISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

C. TPO had restricted the cost of capital to 1.71%. Rationality for such an upper limit being placed on working capital adjustment was an issue which had come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rambus Chip Technologies (India) P. Ltd v. DCIT [IT(TP)A.23/Ban/2015, dt.22.07.2015. Coordinate bench had held as under at para 13

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

C. TPO had restricted the cost of capital to 1.71%. Rationality for such an upper limit being placed on working capital adjustment was an issue which had come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rambus Chip Technologies (India) P. Ltd v. DCIT [IT(TP)A.23/Ban/2015, dt.22.07.2015. Coordinate bench had held as under at para 13

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

1), Bengaluru (“Learned TPO”) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“Learned Panel”), to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant, are bad in law and contrary to the facts. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page