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

In the result, the grounds relating to T

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

194 (3) ITO v. L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 24 taxmann.corn 192 (Born) (4) Mattel Toys India Pvt. Ltd., v. DOlT in ITA No.2476/Mum/2008. The Id. DR placed reliance upon the order of the AO and the DRP. 16. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the record, we find that undisputedly the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

transfer pricing otiose and rendered ineffective. Hon’ble P&H High Court in case of Coca-Cola (2009) 309 ITR 194 have examined in detail the legislative intent behind the provisions in Chapter-X. It is also a matter of common knowledge and record that provisions of sections

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 RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

M/S SALESFORCE.COM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Transfer Pricing Related 4. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 4.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned AO and the Learned Panel erred in holding that tax had not been deducted at source on expenditure amounting to INR 24,586,946 under section 194

M/S. STEER ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

section 144C(5), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall issue the directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. In case the Assessee chooses not to filed objections before

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing issues and regarding revenue’s appeal, it is submitted that ground nos. 4 to 11 in revenue’s appeal are regarding TP issue and since TP issue has attained finality as per MAP resolution, the TP grounds as per revenue’s appeal are also to be rejected. Accordingly these grounds are rejected. 16. Regarding ground

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing issues and regarding revenue’s appeal, it is submitted that ground nos. 4 to 11 in revenue’s appeal are regarding TP issue and since TP issue has attained finality as per MAP resolution, the TP grounds as per revenue’s appeal are also to be rejected. Accordingly these grounds are rejected. 16. Regarding ground

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing issues and regarding revenue’s appeal, it is submitted that ground nos. 4 to 11 in revenue’s appeal are regarding TP issue and since TP issue has attained finality as per MAP resolution, the TP grounds as per revenue’s appeal are also to be rejected. Accordingly these grounds are rejected. 16. Regarding ground

M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing issues and regarding revenue’s appeal, it is submitted that ground nos. 4 to 11 in revenue’s appeal are regarding TP issue and since TP issue has attained finality as per MAP resolution, the TP grounds as per revenue’s appeal are also to be rejected. Accordingly these grounds are rejected. 16. Regarding ground

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer pricing issues and regarding revenue’s appeal, it is submitted that ground nos. 4 to 11 in revenue’s appeal are regarding TP issue and since TP issue has attained finality as per MAP resolution, the TP grounds as per revenue’s appeal are also to be rejected. Accordingly these grounds are rejected. 16. Regarding ground

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.140.84 crores. The assessee challenged the addition by filing IT(TP)A No.525 /Bang/2019 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 18 the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and got partial relief. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed appeals before us on the issues discussed above. 6. We shall first take

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.140.84 crores. The assessee challenged the addition by filing IT(TP)A No.525 /Bang/2019 M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 18 the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and got partial relief. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed appeals before us on the issues discussed above. 6. We shall first take

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

AMC COOKWARE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'], dated 29th January 2016, proposed an addition of Rs.3,81,06,010/- on account of transfer pricing adjustments. Aggrieved, the appellant filed its objections before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ['the DRP']. Concurrently, the learned TPO initiated rectification proceedings and vide order u/s 92CA(5) r.w.s

M/S SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143(2) was issued to assessee in response to which representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and called for requisite details. 2.1 The Ld.AO observed that assessee had international transaction with its associated enterprises exceeding Rs.15 Page 5 of 31 IT(TP)A No.2471/Bang/2017 crores and therefore reference was made to the Transfer Pricing officer. 2.2 On receipt