M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

transfer pricing study report it was proved that the assessee operates in a limited risk and environment in respect of the distribution and marketing segment. In paragraph No. 9.8 the coordinate bench reproduced the various functions of distributors commission, sales promotion and seminar and conventions. In paragraph No. 9.9 the coordinate bench noted the decision in case of Essilor India

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

section 92C, the\narm's length price in relation to an international transaction 22[or a\nspecified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the\nfollowing methods, being the most appropriate method, in the\nfollowing manner, namely:\n(a) - (d) xx\nXX\n(e) Transactional Net Margin Method, by which,-\n(i) the net profit margin realised

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 35 (1) (iv) of the Act without any discussion.” Following questions were posed before the Hon’ble High Court in one of the several appeals filed before it and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decided this issue in favour of the assessee taking note of technological obsolescence and also following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

Section 92 of the Act (Refer page 1497 of PB Vol 3) • Reliance on various case laws that have directed deletion of transfer pricing adjustments determined by the lower authorities by alleging the excess AMP expenditure as a separate international transaction. (Refer page 1497 of PB Vol 3) • AMP expenses are paid to third parties

M/S. AARIS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

154 Adjustment in respect of Software Development 4,47,949,052 20,17,03,783 segment Adjustment in respect of 2,06,66,030 2,06,66,030 ITeS segment Total TP adjustment 468,615,082 22,23,69,813 3. On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order by incorporating the proposed transfer

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority;\n(e) records relating to the draft order;\n(f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and\n(g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it.\n(7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

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

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the assessee and upholds undertaking a new search beyond the due date prescribed for maintaining the TP documentation and also Page 2 of 40 rejecting the use of multiple year data by the assessee in its TP documentation. 2. Impugned order erroneously determines TP adjustment in relation to trading segment by attributing notional shortfall

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 Report (TPSR) – “5.2.1 Functional Analysis-Software Development Services Page 6 ITA Nos. 2127 & 2036/Bang/2024 ADC India has entered into agreements with Amazon Group Companies for provision of software development services primarily in the following areas: a) Web Services ADC India assists with enhancing Amazon web services, which include the Amazon Group's offering of product data

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 Report (TPSR) – “5.2.1 Functional Analysis-Software Development Services Page 6 ITA Nos. 2127 & 2036/Bang/2024 ADC India has entered into agreements with Amazon Group Companies for provision of software development services primarily in the following areas: a) Web Services ADC India assists with enhancing Amazon web services, which include the Amazon Group's offering of product data

QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE :LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer Pricing (TP) document furnished for the A.Y.2017-18, the taxpayer company has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs): International Transactions Particulars Receivables/Received Payables/Paid Method 30806,30,818 TNMM Provision of engineering services 7407,50,417 Provision of backoffice - TNMM support services 3845,35,501 TNMM Availing of engineering services 670,03,866 Availing of back

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

transfer pricing. In holding so, the learned DRP referred various case laws. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned DRP/AO/TPO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us argued that the TPO erred in benchmarking the outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and proposing an adjustment

MAVENIR SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 453/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mavenir Systems Pvt. Ltd., Building Beach E1 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Manyata Embassy Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Hebbal Kr Circle – 4 (1)(1), Puram Section, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaecm9663N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.04.2022 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.Ar Has Relied On The Specific Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Which Are As Under:

transfer pricing order, we note that the Ld.TPO has not categorised assessee to be a product company. We refer to page 44 of the TP order wherein the TPO himself prays the distinction between a software product company and a software service company and has concluded by observing that a product company should have off the shelf products which

CARL ZEISS INDIA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 192/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Plot No. 3, Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Bommasandra Industrial Income Tax, Area, Circle 2 (1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 099. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aadcc6152H Appellant Respondent : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Carl Zeiss India" Or "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National Faceless Center, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Assessing Officer" Or The "Ld. Ao"), Dated 25 January 2022 For The Assessment Year ("Ay")

Transfer Pricing) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act for the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) for AY 2017-18. 4.2 The Ld.TPO on receipt of the reference called upon assessee to file requisite details in form 3CEB. The Ld.TPO noted that, the assessee provides after sales support services for Carl Zeiss products in India. The company caters to both

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing analysis, the purpose is not to compare profit of the tested party with that of the comparables but the purpose is to compare the prices charged by the tested, party with the prices charged by the comparables although when TNMM is adopted as MA.M, the process of such price comparison is by comparing profits of tested party with

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

MICROSOFT RESEARCH LAB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is set aside for doing it denovo

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

transfer pricing adjustments in toto. Considering these facts no discussion of the grounds of appeal is made here. The TPO’s order is to be considered as the order appealed against. The rectification order passed on 1.6.2021 u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) reduced the tax demand from section

MMSH CLINICAL RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

section 270A of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation. MMSH Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 9 Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

154 of the Act. As per the AO, though the enhanced\ndeduction was allowed by the ITAT vide order dated 24-06-2020 for the\nAY 2007-08 in ITA No. 879/Bang/2020 in own case of the assessee, but\nthe same was challenged before the higher forum.\n3. On appeal before the Id. CIT-A, the ground of appeal