INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The Hon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer price as the arm’s length price. Then to make IT(TP)A No.281/Bang/2021 Page 32 of 63 a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible. 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the present case, the TPO accepted the international transaction of trading of AE’s product

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 258/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Eit Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy #39/40, Digital Park, Commissioner Of Electronic City Phase Income Tax, Ii, Circle – 2(1)(1), Hosur Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaacd4078L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 14/02/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred As "Drp" For Brevity) ("Ao", "Tpo" & "Drp"

2,61,60,320 on account of adjustment in the arms- length price under section 92CA(3) in respect of business support services segment for the transactions entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprises. 2.2. The lower authorities have erred, in law and in facts, a) by not accepting the transfer pricing analysis of the Appellant prepared in accordance

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

transfer pricing adjustment to the value of international transaction; 16. without prejudice to above, erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Assessee vis-à-vis the comparables. Adjustment of INR 35,67,86,587 towards selling, marketing and distribution expense incurred by the Appellant (treated as AMP expenditure) 17. erred

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), , BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

transfer pricing study, the assessee chose the following comparables whose arithmetic mean is 9.17% Sl.No Weighted Name of the company 2011 2012* 2013* Average 1 Caliber Point Business 16.90 8.04 6.86 10.04 Solutions Limited 2 Cosmic Global Limited 8.06 40.73 - 26.49 3 In House Productions Limited 10.50 7.89 - 9.04 4 Informed Technologies India 11.67 8.63 10.06 Limited 5 Jindal Intellicom

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

transfer pricing study, the assessee chose the following comparables whose arithmetic mean is 9.17% Sl.No Weighted Name of the company 2011 2012* 2013* Average 1 Caliber Point Business 16.90 8.04 6.86 10.04 Solutions Limited 2 Cosmic Global Limited 8.06 40.73 - 26.49 3 In House Productions Limited 10.50 7.89 - 9.04 4 Informed Technologies India 11.67 8.63 10.06 Limited 5 Jindal Intellicom

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

Section 133(6) notice cannot take precedence over the annual report. In the present case, as stated above, the annual report clearly reflects that the Company renders diverse services which are high end and not comparable to the software development services rendered by the Appellant. In Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Order dated 28.07.2022 passed by this

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

price was fixed in 2009. 2. Facts of the case are that for the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed a return of income on 16.10.2016 Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 2 of 25 declaring an income of Rs.6,39,86,840/-. The return was originally processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

2) of the Act, since there is no specific transfer of a capital asset when assessee retired from the partnership firm. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansukh Dyeing & Printing Mills (supra) at para 12 and the Hon’ble High Court considered that decision in para 6 wherein

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

2) of the Act, since there is no specific transfer of a capital asset when assessee retired from the partnership firm. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansukh Dyeing & Printing Mills (supra) at para 12 and the Hon’ble High Court considered that decision in para 6 wherein

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Officer. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by contending that the Appellant is liable to deduct tax on ESOP cross charge payments under both Section 192 and Section 195 of the Act, against settled principles of law, without appreciating that the same would result in double taxation of same amount

M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Officer. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by contending that the Appellant is liable to deduct tax on ESOP cross charge payments under both Section 192 and Section 195 of the Act, against settled principles of law, without appreciating that the same would result in double taxation of same amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the ITA Nos.1394 & 1395/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 26 taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The Hon'ble Court explained that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the ITA Nos.1394 & 1395/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 26 taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The Hon'ble Court explained that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. THE MATHWORKS INC., UNITED STATES

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

2)\nof the Act was issued on 22.09.2019. During the course of assessment proceeding,\nassessee was directed to produce breakup of receipts of Rs.89,58,63,752/-. In\ncompliance, assessee had disclosed a sum of Rs.59,47,45,151/- as receipts on\naccount of sale of software licence / annual licence fees. Further, a sum of\nRs.30