M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA. 32. The DRP confirmed the order of the AO. In this appeal, the assessee seeks exclusion of 3 comparable companies out of the 4 chosen by the TPO. The assessee seeks exclusion of Fortune Infotech Ltd., and Tricom India Ltd., by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, in the case

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA. 32. The DRP confirmed the order of the AO. In this appeal, the assessee seeks exclusion of 3 comparable companies out of the 4 chosen by the TPO. The assessee seeks exclusion of Fortune Infotech Ltd., and Tricom India Ltd., by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, in the case

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA. 32. The DRP confirmed the order of the AO. In this appeal, the assessee seeks exclusion of 3 comparable companies out of the 4 chosen by the TPO. The assessee seeks exclusion of Fortune Infotech Ltd., and Tricom India Ltd., by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, in the case

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 10 Crore or more in an earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal.  The Instruction further goes on to clarify three situations in which the AO can refer the matter to the TPO. They are as under: 7.7 The Instruction further goes

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass the order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before the said date. [Clauses 25,39 and 40]" (emphasis supplied) 4. Two points clearly stand out from the above excerpt showing the legislative intent for the proposed amendment: First is that the TPO shall determine the Arm's Length Price at least 2 months

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

price by the TPO and the adjustment made: Arm’s Length Mean Mark-up 29.40% Operating Cost Rs.129,89,30,000/- Arm’s Length Price @129.40% of cost Rs.168,08,20,000/- Price Received Rs.1,38,06,40,000/- Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.30,01,80,000/- 79. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination

QUINTILES RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the\ndepartmental appeal is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass\nthe order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before\nthe said date. [Clauses 25,39 and 40]\" (emphasis\nsupplied)\n\n4. Two points clearly stand out from the above excerpt showing\nthe legislative intent for the proposed amendment:\n\nFirst is that the TPO shall determine the Arm's Length Price at\nleast

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

section 133(6) to call for information from comparable companies and make suitable adjustment on account of capacity utilisation differences. • TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. IT(TP)A 693/ Bang/2017 dated 25 / 11 / 2021- relevant para 11 & 12 at page 3156-3166 of case law compendium. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 10A." Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has followed the earlier order for the Assessment Year 2004-05 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.598/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. (Since Amalgamated With M/S.Sitel India Pvt. Ltd.) 501, Wing A & B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan: Aaccc0408M … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. ... Respondent & It(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru. … Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee & Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015

Section 10A of the Act TRANSFER PRICING GROUND: 28 The Hon’ble DRP erred in not adjudicating on the Appellant’s Ground relating to ‘miscellaneous income’ of Rs 485,207 to be considered as operating in nature for the purpose of computing the operating margin of the Appellant IT(TP)A Nos.452 & 598/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 22 The Appellant craves

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.598/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. (Since Amalgamated With M/S.Sitel India Pvt. Ltd.) 501, Wing A & B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan: Aaccc0408M … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. ... Respondent & It(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru. … Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee & Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015

Section 10A of the Act TRANSFER PRICING GROUND: 28 The Hon’ble DRP erred in not adjudicating on the Appellant’s Ground relating to ‘miscellaneous income’ of Rs 485,207 to be considered as operating in nature for the purpose of computing the operating margin of the Appellant IT(TP)A Nos.452 & 598/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 22 The Appellant craves

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 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

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 failed to consider the fact that the Company is having only specified domestic transactions under section 92BA read with 40A(2)(b) on which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. However, as per para 166

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 failed to consider the fact that the Company is having only specified domestic transactions under section 92BA read with 40A(2)(b) on which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. However, as per para 166

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

166 and Sunil Sidhrath Bhai v CIT 156 ITR 509. We also bring to your attention to the fact that the appellant has in fact reduced the cost of investments in its books of accounts and has written down the value to the face value of shares held and owned by it. Page 10 of 19 We also draw your

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

transfer pricing provisions to include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert whether or not it is formal or in writing or whether or not it is intended to be enforceable by legal proceeding. There is no reference to any transaction having necessarily including profit element or IT(TP)A No.1497/Bang/2010 Page 24 of 37 mark

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Transfer Pricing study and the approach of the TPO in his order under section 92CA of the Act are briefly summarized hereunder. 4.2 The assessee had reported the following international transactions in the TP study: Sl. International Transactions Amount (Rs.) No. 1. BPO Services 23,54,82,123/- 2. Reimbursement of Expenses 38,49,263/- received The assessee characterized

M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD ,DODDABALLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Sections 92 to 92F] to these three situations is objected to by the taxpayer, the AO must consider the taxpayer's objections and pass a speaking order so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. If the AO decides in the said order that the transaction in question needs to be referred to the TPO, he should make