M/S EMERSON AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS PVT. LTD,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

Section 144C. 6. Consequent to DRP's Direction, transfer Pricing officer-1(3)(1), Bangalore has passed the order u/s 92CA on 11.10.2018, and has concluded that an adjustment is required with regard to transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA: SN Description Adjustment u/s. 92 CA (In Rs) 1 Manufacturing Segment 13,15,83,4222 2 Trading & Distribution

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer of ownership of technical know-how to the Appellant. 29. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in contending that the know- how remains with the Appellant even after the termination of the agreement and a permanent platform is built, without appreciating the fact that the group companies continuously IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 55 develop the know

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis after determining the profit of the tested party or comparable, profit percentage is worked out by dividing such profit of the tested party/comparable by its turnover. If the provision for doubtful debts is reduced from profit, the numerator IT(TP)A Nos. 238/Bang/2021 & 262/Bang/2022 Page 38 of 133 is reduced but the denominator is not reduced because

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis after determining the profit of the tested party or comparable, profit percentage is worked out by dividing such profit of the tested party/comparable by its turnover. If the provision for doubtful debts is reduced from profit, the numerator IT(TP)A Nos. 238/Bang/2021 & 262/Bang/2022 Page 38 of 133 is reduced but the denominator is not reduced because

MOHAMMED ABDUL NAJEEB,GULBARGA, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

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

transfer of\njurisdiction from Gulbarga regular\njurisdiction, without complying to the\nmandatory requirements of provisions of\nSection 127 of the Act. In this regard, the\nappellant places reliance on the following\njudicial precedents:\na) SAHARA HOSPITAL LTD\nV/S CIT (2012) 211\nTAXMANN 299 (BOM)\nb) AJANTA INDUSTRIES V/S\nCBDT (1976) 102 ITR 281\n(SC)\nc) MUKUTLA LALITA V/S\nCIT

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 260-A of the Act was not maintainable. Thus, it is clear that the Hont>le High Court has also not ruled against the separate benchmarking of royalty. As noted by the TPO, in the following year i.e. A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal had held that royalty is to be benchmarked separately. Further, in the case of M/s. Toyota

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

transferred on 1-10-2014 Rs 60,00,000/- in NRO Deposit Account. This was substantiated by producing the annual accounts of the companies where loan was shown as unsecured loan liability in the name of assessee, confirmation of the companies and bank statement of assessee with Federal bank. 20. Thus, assessee explained source of the deposit

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala

MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM,MATHIKERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala

DCIT, CC- 2(1), BLR, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

237 (Ker.), CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi), CIT v. Archana R. Dhanwatey [1982] 136 ITR 355 (Bom.). 32.If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. (See Dy. CST v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 SCC 279. This Court in the case of Nirmala

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

Pricing Agreement, the assessee has filed modified ITR u/s 139 r.w.s. 92CD of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] on 19.10.2020 declaring income of Rs.23,19,09,830/-. The other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. 2.1 The assessee company is engaged in providing software development services including testing, infrastructure support and other related services