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 Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant under

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 Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant under

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 Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant under

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, 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 : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 42 further

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, 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 : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 10A of the Act for the additions made by the TPO under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The authorities below are not justified in levying interest under Sec 234(A), (B), (C) on the facts and circumstances of the case. The levy is IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page 7 of 42 further

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing. In the case on hand, the assessee has not brought on record any fact to show that the current year data are not reflecting the correct uncontrolled comparable price. Therefore, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 6.1 Ground No.4 is regarding the adjustment for difference in accounting policies, depreciation adjustment, etc. 6.2 At the time

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

Transfer Pricing risk parameter. On the other hand, the case was selected for limited scrutiny one of the reasons being mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s. 40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR. From a reading of these reasons, we are of the view that no prudent business person properly instructed in law would have inferred

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing) 2 (2) (1)\nBangalore (the learned TPO) on 28th of January 2022 and the direction\nissued by The Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bangalore (the learned\ndispute resolution panel/the DRP) under Section 144C (5) of the act\nwherein the total income of the assessee as per return of income filed on\n30 November

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded

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

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

M/S MICROSHIP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence. 5.3. Rejecting the comparability analysis carried out by the Assessee in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for the software development services based on the application of additional filters in determining the arm's length

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C, transfer pricing additions were made for transactions with associated enterprises along with certain other additions to the total income of the Appellant. 3. The additional grounds of appeal (enclosed herewith) relates to rejection of Helios & Matheson Information Technology Limited, Infosys Technologies Limited, Kals Information Systems Limited, Sasken Communication Technologies Limited, Tata Elxsi Limited and Wipro

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in computation of markup of the Company. 71. The ld. DR submitted that this company was rejected on application of upper turnover filter and upheld the application of the related party transaction filter applied by the TPO. Hence, the contention regarding the turnover and related party transaction filter are not acceptable. With regard

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

transfer pricing upward adjustment under SWD segment and no adjustment was made in under the ITeS segment. The other additions proposed on corporate tax issues were confirmed by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. It is submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature

M/S. E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S. E4E Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Vakil Square, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. ……. Appellant Pan – Aaaci 6324A. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(2), Bengalore. …………..Respondent

transfer pricing related grounds 10.1 Honorable ORP and the learned AO/ TPO have erred, in law and on facts in holding that the transactions between the Appellant and its AE were not at an ALP as defined under section 92F(ii) of the Act and upholding the adjustment to the ALP made by the learned TPO. 10.2 Honorable

M/S. SUMUKHA HOLDINGS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. Page 3 of 14 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete

M/S. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Transfer Pricing regulations under the Act. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of IT(TP)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Page 24 of 32 application of turnoverfilter and his action in excluding companies by following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra)." 10. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision

L3 COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

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

transfer pricing issues to the TPO. IT(TP)A No.1938 /Bang/2017 Page 3 of 11 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, Learned DRP has erred in confirming the list of comparable selected by Ld. TPO and disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant for exclusion/ inclusion of certain comparable. Without prejudice to the generality of this Ground, specific grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

Transfer Pricing officer for determining the arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by assessee. 4. Upon receipt of reference under section 92CA, the Ld.TPO allowed upon assessee to furnish economic details of international transactions entered into by assessee in Form 3 CEB. 5. The Ld.AO observed that assessee had following international transaction with its associated enterprises