DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

transfer pricing study; [corresponding to Ground 4 (a)] 9. That the learned Panel 'has erred in upholding the learned TPO's approach of upholding the arm's length value of the international transaction related to reimbursement of expenses as NIL; [corresponding to Ground 4 (b)] 10. That the learned AO/ learned Panel erred in bringing to tax the interest income

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

transfer pricing study; [corresponding to Ground 4 (a)] 9. That the learned Panel 'has erred in upholding the learned TPO's approach of upholding the arm's length value of the international transaction related to reimbursement of expenses as NIL; [corresponding to Ground 4 (b)] 10. That the learned AO/ learned Panel erred in bringing to tax the interest income

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 ("TP") adjustment of INR 4,77,30,553/-. 3. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not acknowledging the voluntary payment of true-up adjustment offered suo-moto for tax by the assessee. 4. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant on invoking provisions

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

234C of the Act and is purely consequential. The AO has to give consequential effect as per directions in this order. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicament and preparations, consumer/personal care products and animal health care products. The partners

M/S.FILTREX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

234C. 11. Further, the lower authorities have erred in levying interest of Rs. 16,063/- under section 234D. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest under section 234D is not leviable. The Appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234D. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub- grounds are independent and without prejudice

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 83,55,708. 15.The learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by not appreciating that the outstanding trade receivables from its AE's is arising from the provision of software development services transaction and is to be considered as closely linked to such transaction

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

Transfer Pricing Officer has erred in not providing appropriate adjustments towards the risk differential while determining the arm's length price. 16. That the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law and on facts in adding back the broadband connectivity charges amounting to Rs 58,639 to the total income

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

MPHASIS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Transfer Pricing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 IT(TP)A Nos.1104 & 1258/Bang/2012 Mphasis Limited IV have erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/-5% range mentioned in the proviso to section 92C(2). REDUCTION IN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY 12. In the facts

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

234C of the Act. 16. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the learned AO in levying interest under section 234D of the Act; 17. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. All the above grounds may be considered independent and without prejudice of each other

M/S ESSILOR INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.29/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) & It(Tp)A No.227/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Essilor India Pvt.Ltd. No.71/1, Brigade Plaza, 6Th Floor, S C Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9. … Appellant Pan:Aaace 4623 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

234C of the Act at Rs. 8,14,41I/-. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the learned Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 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 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) 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 Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

Transfer Pricing 1. Adjustment for interest free loan to 5,48,04,95,014 Associated Enterprises (AE) 2. Adjustment towards corporate guarantee 1,22,24,28,300 fee 3. Adjustment on purchase of raw materials 68,60,16,563 from Whyte & Mackay B. Corporate Tax 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the 48,04,00,000 I.T.Act r.w.r

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing study of the Appellant and using arbitrary filters for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to ITeS. 4.1 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in applying the turnover filter with lower limit of INR 1 Crore without appreciating that the Appellant's turnover was INR 233.97 crore, and therefore, ought

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

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 258/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Eit Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy #39/40, Digital Park, Commissioner Of Electronic City Phase Income Tax, Ii, Circle – 2(1)(1), Hosur Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaacd4078L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 14/02/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred As "Drp" For Brevity) ("Ao", "Tpo" & "Drp"

transfer pricing study without providing any cogent reasons for the same: a) Adecco India Private Limited b) Anlage infotech India Private Limited c) BNR Udyog Limited — BSS Segment d) Husys Consulting Limited e) International Manpower Resources Private Limited f) MPCON Limited g) Magma Advisory Services Limited h) Talent Maximus India Private Limited i) Teamlease Services Limited j) Verifacts Services Private

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 MAXIM INDIA INTERGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore in keeping with the OECD guidelines, endeavor should be made to bring in comparable companies for the purpose of broad comparison. Therefore the working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.” 20. We notice that the Delhi bench of Tribunal has held in the case

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,91,00,534 (Software Development Segment) and Rs. 1,17,44,791 (ITeS Segment); not appreciating that there is no amendment to the definition of b) "income" and charging or computation provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee 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 Grounds Of Appeal.

price without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent under the proviso to section 92C of the Act; Grounds of appeal relating to general matters 13. The learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, by levying interest of Rs.24,15,703 and Rs.52,160 under section 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. 14. The learned AO erred