M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

C of the Income Tax Act) upon reference from the Assessing officer (Section - 92CA of the Income Tax Act). Deviation from confines of any of the above constituent elements under the law pulverizes the role and jurisdiction of a Transfer Pricing Officer. Impliedly it is not the role and jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer to transgress

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

23 Revenue authorities in this case is that no services were rendered by the associated enterprises at all, and that since there is no evidence of services having been rendered at all, the arm's length price of these services is 'nil'." 35. The Transfer Pricing Officer's report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the Assessing

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

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

Price Method; (c) Cost Plus Method; (d) Profit Split Method; (e) Transactional Net Margin Method; (f) Such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. Sub-section 2 of Section 92C of the Act provides that the MAM referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of the ALP, in the manner as may be prescribed

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

c) Further, the appellant requested that in the light of dictum of Supreme Court, the appellant may kindly be given: 1) A copy of the reasons if any recorded for the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2) Copy of the satisfaction obtained from the Range -7(1), Bangalore (as noted in the notice issued

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act. 10 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. 3.17 He further submitted that as per the development agreement entered by the assessee on 03.06.2013, the land owners have promised to transfer an agreed portion of land to the developer. The assessee in turn has promised to construct and transfer a share in the constructed property

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

transfer pricing adjustment, 22. Addition made by the Ld.AO in respect of Corporate tax issues are alleged by the assessee in Ground no.7-10 and are adjudicated as under. 23. Ground no.7-8 is in respect of disallowance of deduction under section 80 JJAA of the Act, amounting to Rs.13,07,42,470/-. 24. Ground Nos.9-10 is in respect of disallowance under

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

transfer pricing adjustment, 22. Addition made by the Ld.AO in respect of Corporate tax issues are alleged by the assessee in Ground no.7-10 and are adjudicated as under. 23. Ground no.7-8 is in respect of disallowance of deduction under section 80 JJAA of the Act, amounting to Rs.13,07,42,470/-. 24. Ground Nos.9-10 is in respect of disallowance under

M/S INATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

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

transfer pricing adjustment, if any, should not be computed on the transaction with Calsoft Dubai branch. 4. Levy of interest under section 234B - Rs.95,79,504 IT(TP)A No. 214/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 23 Learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential to additions made in the assessment order 4. Ground No.1 – being general

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

Price Method; (c) Cost Plus Method; (d) Profit Split Method; (e) Transactional Net Margin Method; (f) Such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. IT(TP)A No.3071/Bang/2018 The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore Page 23 of 75 Sub-section 2 of Section 92C of the Act provides that the MAM referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

1) of the Act. 6.1 The AO/ TPO grossly erred on facts and the IA. Panel erred in confirming the benchmarking of transactions of software development services of the Appellant with companies such as ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.. KAIS Information Systems Ltd., Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd.. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.. and Tata

SAN DISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

1) of the Act. 6.1 The AO/ TPO grossly erred on facts and the IA. Panel erred in confirming the benchmarking of transactions of software development services of the Appellant with companies such as ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.. KAIS Information Systems Ltd., Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd.. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.. and Tata

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

23,45,514 3. Reimbursement of Expenses paid -Rs. 4,64,01,022 IT(TP)A No.303/Bang/2021 & SP No.64/Bang/2021 M/s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore Page 10 of 47 The TPO has made adjustment in respect of export of ayurvedic medicines and preparations. 6.1 The assessee submitted that it has followed pricing policy of “cost plus method” in respect

MFX INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

transfer pricing analysis. The Amended Income tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) via Notification 83 of 2015 which is the 16th amendment to the originally drafted Indian Tax Rules, 1962, are applicable for transactions undertaken on or after 1 April 2014 (i.e. from FY 2014-15 and onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of ‘ALP’ is done under

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

C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1539/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited., Income Tax, No.41, Bhimenahalli, MN Halli Post, Circle – 7(1)(1), Manchanayakanahalli B.O, Bidadi, Bangalore. Ramanagara. PAN – AAECT 1871 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

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

transfer price once developed.” Furthermore, the Company is leading provider of Bluetooth Intellectual Property solutions (He referred page 1915 of Annual Report Compendium, expert thinking para) and is also providing digital video surveillance solutions based on the technology developed and for which company has filed patent application (He referred page 1871 & 1872 which is the Annual Report Compendium

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

1)(c) deals with the determination of ALP a per TNMM. As per this Rule, the net profit margin from a comparable uncontrolled transaction is adjusted to take into account the differences between the international transactions and comparable uncontrolled transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market. This is compared with

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

1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. Appropriate Transfer Pricing Methodology: 5. IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 56 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate methodology for determining the transfer pricing

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

1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. Appropriate Transfer Pricing Methodology: 5. IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 21 of 56 5.1 The authorities below failed to appreciate that CPM is the appropriate methodology for determining the transfer pricing