MATCHMOVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(3), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, ground no. 4 of the Appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.Ittpa No. 2255/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

Transfer Pricing Grounds: 3. Adjustment on account of re-determination of ALP for software development services rendered by the Appellant to its AEs amounting to INR 10,25,38,320 3.1. Erred by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the Act and the corresponding Rules, conducting a fresh economic analysis for the determination

CITRIX R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

Transfer Pricing - 12. That the Learned DRP erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO in disallowing deduction claimed under section 35AC and 8oG of the Act amounting to INR 7,50,00o. 13. That the Learned AO & Learned DRP failed to appreciate the fact that no restriction is imposed on claiming deduction under section 35AC

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

transfer pricing IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 36 study in which the assessee chose TNMM as the MAM for determining ALP choosing the PLI as the OP/TC. The OP/TC of the assessee was computed as follows: Operating Income Rs.1,65,32,416/- Operating Expenses Rs.1,50,34,474/- Operating Profit (Op. Income — Op. Expenses) Rs.14

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

transfer pricing IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 23 of 36 study in which the assessee chose TNMM as the MAM for determining ALP choosing the PLI as the OP/TC. The OP/TC of the assessee was computed as follows: Operating Income Rs.1,65,32,416/- Operating Expenses Rs.1,50,34,474/- Operating Profit (Op. Income — Op. Expenses) Rs.14

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing addition of INR.62,88,86,271/- is set aside Ground No.1.1 to 1.7 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.2 25. Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act is dismissed as premature IT(TP)A No.2525/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 in nature

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

234A of the Act without appreciating that the original return of income was filed by the Appellant within the due date as specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. 26.The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in levying the interest of INR 40,72,848 under Section 2348 of the Act. 27.The learned AO has erred

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

transfer pricing officer of LIBOR plus 400 basis points , no evidence was lead before us that it is not arms’ length, however several judicial precedents were cited to show that in case of such a transaction of capital financing the LIBOR Page 26 of 29 + 200 basis points is appropriate. Therefore, respectfully following those decisions, we direct

DMG MORI SEIKI INDIA MACHINES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P Boazit(Tp)A 1617/Bang/2012 (Asst. Year – 2008-09)

234A of the Act. 7.Interest under section 234B of the Act The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.Interest under section 234D of the Act The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act. 9.Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The learned

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

price as permitted to the Appellant under the provisions of Section 92C(2) of the Act. General Grounds 23. The learned AO has erred. in law and in facts, by levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act: Page 5 of 20 IT(TP)A No. 726/Bang/2017 24. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

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 34 IT(TP)A No.489/Bang/2017 . promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance

M/S TYCO FIRE & SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

transfer pricing adjustment as determined by the learned AO / TPO / DRP for P&T segment. Grounds relating to corporate tax matters: 27. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, by disallowing INR 66,019,470 as tax paid and borne by the Appellant on salary paid to expatriate employee (Mr. Sharad Bohra). The learned AO erred

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

transfer pricing provisions and settled judicial principles. 42.3 With respect to corporate services, the assessee submits that TEL provides centralized operational services such as finance, treasury, tax, legal, HR, governance, operational excellence, and executive support, which are essential for day-to-day operations and governance of the assessee. Stewardship or shareholder activities, if any, are specifically excluded from charge

M/S. DISA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.290/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 – 13

transfer pricing analysis without appreciating the fact that the principle of aggregation of closely linked transactions is a well-established rule prescribed by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development guidelines ('OECD Guidelines') and referred to for uidance in various rulings of Income Tax Appellate Tribunals ('ITAT'). 6 The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating

M/S. METRICSTREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2347/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Assessee; c. Adopting inappropriate filterss like 25% RPT filter, one sided turnover filter, etc in the process of selecting comparables; d. Rejecting Priya International Limited as a comparable as selected by the Appellant in the TP study on unjustifiable grounds; e. Adopting companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in respect

SAMI-SABINSA GROUP LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing report prepared by it and has instead erroneously determined PLI at entity level. The TPO and DRP has rejected the segmented financial information furnished in the TP report. 1 The TPO and DRP has failed to appreciate the business arrangement of your appellant with its AE wherein the AE's operate as a limited risk bearing marketing

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

234A, 234B and 234C\nof the Act which is consequential in nature and therefore not requiring\nany separate adjudication. Hence, all these grounds of appeal are\nhereby dismissed as infructuous.\n20.\nThe issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos.3 to 7 are\ninterconnected and pertains to the taxation of receipt of sale\nconsideration of flats received under

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

transferred by the Government under section 32 of the\nKIAD Act, that the role of the Board begins.\nRestraint on expenditure from funds of the assessee\n26. Section 23 stipulates that the assessee shall have the\nauthority to spend such sums as it thinks fit for the\npurposes authorised under this Act from out of Board's\nfunds. Every expense

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

234A, 234B and 234C\nof the Act which is consequential in nature and therefore not requiring\nany separate adjudication. Hence, all these grounds of appeal are\nhereby dismissed as infructuous.\n\n20. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos.3 to 7 are\ninterconnected and pertains to the taxation of receipt of sale\nconsideration of flats received under