TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :--- (a) to (d)…………. (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction

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 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-I of the Act and disallowing the same

BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

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

transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared.” 19. A reading of the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules shows that uncontrolled transaction has to be compared with international transaction having regard to the factors set out therein. Before us there is no dispute that the TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

transfer pricing guidelines wherein it is mentioned that there was no separate benchmarking required to be made in a scenario where the transactions are closely linked or continuous that they cannot be evaluated addition on a separate basis. 9) The contentions of the taxpayer are placed on record and is disposed as below. The taxpayer has stated that no separate

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , 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.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

transfer pricing segment was restored to the AO / TPO to examine whether the assesee had recovered expenditure incurred in respect of warranty services with the 27 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. mark-up of 5%. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-2010, which has confirmed

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

transfer pricing proceedings, the Ld.TPO an adjustment relating to loan advanced to AE(sister concern) at Rs.20,32,95,392/-. The Ld.AO while passing the Draft assessment order made following addition/disallowance: Notional forex loss : Rs.22,95,48,325/- Software expenses capatalised : Rs.1,99,17,446/- Less: Depreciation allowed : Rs.(1,19.50,467) TP Adjustment : Rs.20,32,95,392/- Aggrieved

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

transfer pricing proceedings, the Ld.TPO an adjustment relating to loan advanced to AE(sister concern) at Rs.20,32,95,392/-. The Ld.AO while passing the Draft assessment order made following addition/disallowance: Notional forex loss : Rs.22,95,48,325/- Software expenses capatalised : Rs.1,99,17,446/- Less: Depreciation allowed : Rs.(1,19.50,467) TP Adjustment : Rs.20,32,95,392/- Aggrieved

M/S. TIVO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VEVEO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

transfer pricing adjustment, on account of interest income short charged or uncharged. It was argued that insertion of Explanation with retrospective effect covers assessment year under consideration and hence under/non-payment of interest by AEs on debt arising during course of business becomes international transactions, calling for computing its ALP. He referred to decision of Delhi Tribunal in Ameriprise (supra

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.70.71 lakhs instead of Rs.40.71 lakhs. Accordingly he submitted that the there is excess TP adjustment by Rs.30.00 lakhs. 14. The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the 3 comparable companies selected by TPO, following two companies have been held to be under good comparables in the case of Electronic Imaging India

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

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.70.71 lakhs instead of Rs.40.71 lakhs. Accordingly he submitted that the there is excess TP adjustment by Rs.30.00 lakhs. 14. The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the 3 comparable companies selected by TPO, following two companies have been held to be under good comparables in the case of Electronic Imaging India

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 INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

transfer pricing adjustment is liable to be deleted in entirety. Grounds on disallowance under section 14A 10. The learned assessing officer has erred in computing disallowance of Rs. 3,30,96,246 under section Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax rules

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Transfer Pricing Adjustment was made. The assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.11.12.2009, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.479,02,19,330 in view of certain additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dt.11.12.2009 for Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee filed

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

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

transfer pricing. Based on the facts as presented in the above analysis of functions performed, assets employed and risks borne, it is possible to characterize Altran India as a service provider that assumes normal risks. Based on the above we undertake the exclusion/inclusion of the comparables alleged by assessee as under. 18. For Exclusion: It is submitted by the Ld.AR

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price at 25.25%. Even though, DRP refused to interfere with the objections of the assessee in its order, we were informed that DRP has directed the TPO/A.O. not to make any negative working capital adjustment in some of the cases in the next assessment year, in the cases of Market Tools Research P. Ltd., and Mega Systems Worldwide India

M/S TELSIMA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

transfer price by INR 76,20,824/- of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated Enterprises ("AEs") with respect to the Software Development Services ("IT") rendered by the tax payer u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions

ALLEGRIS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

transfer pricing documentation. Further the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO/ TPO in reallocating the total costs on the basis of revenue and not providing an opportunity of being heard while reallocating the costs. Software development services transaction 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding the action of AO/TPO