INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.1670/Bang/2012 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block 1, No.6 & 24, Epip Zone Phase 1, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066 …. Appellant. Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, Cit-Iii (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 5.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2008-09 By The Dcit, Circle 11(4), Bangalore Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.29.10.2012, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Rws 144C(8) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.17.9.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

price by the learned TPO. 7 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 6.2 in adopting the arm’s length mark up to be 23.65%, in respect of the international transaction pertaining to the rendering of software development services by the Appellant; 6.3 in completely relying on the unaudited data requisitioned and consequently obtained by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 133(6

M/S. ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

transfer pricing regulations in harmony, the adjustments should be made on the tested party. On the question of IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2021 Page 33 of 47 the data and method of computation of under utilization capacity adjustment, the tribunal held that the claim depends on acceptability of such adjustments being concerted, being reasonably accurate in mechanism for such adjustments

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGES INDIA PVT,. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

133(6) and relying on the same without providing complete information or an opportunity to cross examine the companies concerned. GROUNDS ON COMPARABLES AND REJECTION OF TP ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLANT 4. The learned Assessing Officer, learned Transfer Pricing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in a. computing the arm's length price based

DCIT vs. M/S ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

133(6) and relying on the same without providing complete information or an opportunity to cross examine the companies concerned. GROUNDS ON COMPARABLES AND REJECTION OF TP ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLANT 4. The learned Assessing Officer, learned Transfer Pricing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in a. computing the arm's length price based

AMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

Transfer Pricing) - I, Bangalore [‘TPO’], inter alia, since AMD India Private Limited [‘AMD India’ or ‘the Appellant’] has satisfied all the conditions as laid out in section 92C(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction. IT(TP)A Nos.437 & 457/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 54 c) The order passed

ITO vs. M/S AAMD INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

Transfer Pricing) - I, Bangalore [‘TPO’], inter alia, since AMD India Private Limited [‘AMD India’ or ‘the Appellant’] has satisfied all the conditions as laid out in section 92C(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction. IT(TP)A Nos.437 & 457/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 54 c) The order passed

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

price. 4.4. Using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of preparing the TP documentation. 4.5. Using information under section 133(6) of the Act, which tantamount to choosing secret comparable companies whose information was not available in public domain while preparing the TP documentation for the relevant financial year

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 133(6) of the Act were issued. 3 Erroneous data used by the AO/TPO a) The AO/TPO has erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting the transfer pricing

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

Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the\ndetermination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions. The TPO noted that as per the Transfer Pricing (TP)\ndocuments furnished for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, the\nAssessee had entered into the following International Transactions\nwith its AEs:\nInternational Transactions as per 3CEB\nParticulars\nReceived/\nReceivables

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

Transfer Pricing (`TP') documentation without appreciating the contentions, arguments, and evidentiary data .put forward by the Appellant during the course of the proceedings before them, and in doing so have grossly erred: 1.2.1. in adopting the arm's length mark up to be 23.12% in respect of international transactions of the Appellant. 1.2.2. in rejecting the upper limit for sales

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

Transfer Pricing – VI), Bangalore grossly erred inlaw and facts of the case in determining the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions of the appellant and thereby making an adjustment of Rs.23,510,275 with respect to the software development services rendered by the tax payer under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. 2. The ld. Assessing Officer

DCIT vs. M/S MISYS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as C

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

price, ignoring the fact that this data was not available to the Respondent at the time of complying with the TP documentation requirements. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the learned TPO’s approach of collecting selective information of the companies by exercising powers granted to him under section 133(6) of the Act that

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

transfer of money or a written agreement as suggested by the Revenue, and even if resort is had to Section 92F (v) which defines 'transaction' to include 'arrangement', 'understanding' IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 48 of 71 or 'action in concert', 'whether formal or in writing', it is still incumbent on the Revenue

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

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 confirrned 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 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

Section 133(6) to collate the information on capacity details of the comparable companies such as actual capacity in units, installed capacity, break up of fixed and variable cost, product wise segmental profitability (if any) and provide the Assessee an opportunity by sharing the details so obtained on the comparable companies, and accordingly grant the adjustment for capacity under-utilized

DCIT vs. M/S SUPPRT .COM INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

133(6) and relying on the same without providing complete information and an opportunity to cross examine the companies concerned. GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING - COMPUTATION OF ALP The learned Assessing Officer, learned Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in: 6) performing fresh transfer pricing analysis and adopting inappropriate filters in doing fresh

SUPPORT.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. JCIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

133(6) and relying on the same without providing complete information and an opportunity to cross examine the companies concerned. GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING - COMPUTATION OF ALP The learned Assessing Officer, learned Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in: 6) performing fresh transfer pricing analysis and adopting inappropriate filters in doing fresh

M/S IKA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 133(6) of the Act to call for information on capacity utilization of the comparable companies such as — • Installed Capacity, • Actual Production in Units, • Break-up of Fixed Cost and Variable Cost; IT(TP)A No.2476/Bang/2017 Page 22 of 35 • Segmental/ product wise information, if any. 34. Post obtaining the information, he is requested to provide the assessee

DCIT vs. M/S PMC SIERRA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as C

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing legislation in India and taxpayers as well as tax consultants were not fully conversant with this new branch of law when proceedings were initiated or even at appellate stage. Besides, Revenue authorities, including TPO were required to apply statutory provisions and consider for purposes of comparison functions, assets and risks (turnover), profit and technology employed by the tested