M/S. NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

191. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act was served. During the course of assessment proceedings, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the 2 IT(TP)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/s.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee with

ALCON LABORATORIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

section 142(1) of the act were issued. In response to the statutory notices, the assessee appeared before the Ld.AO, through its representatives and filed requisite details as called for. 2.2 The Ld.AO observed that, the assessee is engaged in sale of ophthalmic surgical electronic equipments, intraocular lenses, spare parts and pharmaceutical products. 2.3 The Ld.AO observed that, the assessee

M/S. WIELAND METALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Transfer Pricing Officer in rejecting the method adopted, or canvassed, by the assessee is the fact that the assessee has incurred loss in the relevant previous year, but, in our humble understanding, such a consideration is wholly irrelevant. The Transactional Net Margin Method, on a conceptual note, is described as one of the method of last resort

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

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

191 ITR 647and that of DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd 312 ITR 63 (Kar). The assessee's core contention raised in this regard is that irrespective of the amount of consideration involved (even if Nil) or the accrual of either positive or negative income, the capital gains / loss provision would be attracted, as certain element of transfer extinguishment

M/S. INFINERA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

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

section 133(6) of the Act, that was not available to the Appellant in the public domain and relying on the same for comparability purposes in denial of natural justice to be observed in the assessment proceedings. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that ground no.1,2,3,4.1,4.2 & 4.4 are general. Regarding ground no.4.3

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

transfer pricing adjustments- 6. Donations for 10A units: Rs. 18,52,713 6.1 The learned AO/ DRP has erred in disallowing the donation expenditure without attributing the same to the corresponding unit where it was incurred. 6.2 The learned AO/DRP ought to have observed that the said expenditure pertains to the unit eligible to avail benefit under section

M/S. FCG SOFTWARE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

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

191 Rs.53,17,86,452 + Reimbursement of expenses Received of RS.8,05,93,261 Arms Length Margin 20.44% of the operating cost Arms Length Price (ALP) Rs.64,04,83,603/- At 118.44% of operating cost 19.7. Price received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price: The price charged by the tax payer to its Associated Enterprises is compared