DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and upholding the economic analysis carried out by the learned TPO during the assessment

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and upholding the economic analysis carried out by the learned TPO during the assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO, learned TPO and Hon’ble DRO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and upholding the economic analysis carried out by the learned TPO during the assessment

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

transfer pricing analysis without rejecting the TP analysis performed by the Appellant; iii.Rejecting TNMM applied by Appellant to justify its international transactions with AE on unjustifiable grounds; iv.Not appreciating that Appellant had adopted TNMM at the entity level, in which process, the royalty payment and IT(TP)ANo.469/B/17 12 management fee was considered and accordingly benchmarked; and v. Not appreciating

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

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Transfer Pricing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/-5% range mentioned in the proviso to section 92C(2). 13. REDUCTION IN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION l0A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned

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)

transfer pricing study report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule lOD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules']. b) The AO/ TPO erred oil and in law in rejecting one method [‘TNMM'] and selecting another method ['CUP'] as the most appropriate method without providing reasons to the Appellant for rejecting the method adopted

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

transfer pricing documentation requirements and the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the said stand of the learned TPO/AO; 7. The learned AO/ TPO has erred in law and facts by rejecting certain comparable companies considered by the Appellant in the comparability analysis by applying different quantitative and qualitative filters: (a) by rejecting certain comparable companies identified

M/S TRILOGY E- BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P.) A. No.33/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Trilogy E-Business Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.1/2, Lalitha Nilaya, 4Th Cross, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bhopsandra, Bangalore-560 094. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore-560 001. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P.) A. No.115/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.5.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 6.11.2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 2. The Assessee-Company Was Incorporated In June 2000 & Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Versata International Inc., (Previously Known As Trilogy Inc.). During The Financial Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Provided Software Development Services As Well As Call Centre Services To Its Associated Enterprises (In Short ‘Aes’). The Assessee Is Compensated On Cost +10% Basis By Its Aes For The Services Provided By The Assessee. The Financial Results Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Are Recorded By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short ‘Tpo’) In Paragraph 2.1 As Under :

section 234B and 234D. PRAYER 11. On an overall consideration of the facts of the case, and the law applicable: 9 IT(TP)A Nos.33 & 115/Bang/2013 The ALP as determined by the Transfer Pricing

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Transfer Pricing 01.11.2019 Officer’s order is passed. Note-1: Calculation of break-up of sixty December:30 days days (excluding 31.12.2019) November: 30 days 9. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (i) DCIT v. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd (supra), (ii) M/s.Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (iii) ECL Finance

SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 22 to 22

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.418/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.596/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Sigma Aldrich Chemicals The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No.12, Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Bommasandra-Jagani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aahcs1882L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Final Assessment Order Dated 19.01.2015 & 28.01.2016 For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012, Respectively. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Transfer Pricing 01.11.2019 Officer’s order is passed. Note-1: Calculation of break-up of sixty December:30 days days (excluding 31.12.2019) November: 30 days 9. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (i) DCIT v. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd (supra), (ii) M/s.Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (iii) ECL Finance

M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Transfer Pricing) 2. The Learned AO erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that expenditure incurred in foreign currency need not be reduced from Export proceeds from export of Computer Software while computing deduction under section 10A of the Act, since Clause (iv) in Explanation 2 to Sec 10A contemplates such exclusion of expenditure in foreign currency only

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Transfer Pricing) 2. The Learned AO erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that expenditure incurred in foreign currency need not be reduced from Export proceeds from export of Computer Software while computing deduction under section 10A of the Act, since Clause (iv) in Explanation 2 to Sec 10A contemplates such exclusion of expenditure in foreign currency only

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

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

section 234D of Rs. 642,630 which is consequential in nature to the adjustments made to returned income. IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No. 553/Bang/2015 C.O. No. 123/Bang/2015 Page 8 of 44 3.2.2 The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal vide letter dated 27.04.2017 Transfer Pricing

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. b) The AO/TPO erred in law and the CIT(A) further erred in not applying multiple-year data while computing the margin of alleged comparable companies. 5. Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies, by the A0/TPO a) The AGTPO erred in law and on facts in not allowing appropriate adjustments under

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

DCIT vs. M/S ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Transfer Pricing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/- 5% range prescribed in the proviso to section 92C(2). 8. The learned assessing officer has erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234D