CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

239,145,955/– resulting into a shortfall of Rs.1,80,49,887. In market support services segment, the arm's-length price of ₹ 108,153,562 was 11. computed against the price received of ₹ 105,338,099 resulting into a shortfall adjustment of ₹ 2,815,469. In the ITeS segment the arm's-length price was considered

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the TP analysis of the assessee whereby the assessee compared its profit margin with its comparable companies and claimed that the margin it earned in the international transaction was IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page 11 of 42 comparable with the profit margins of the comparable companies. The TPO, while accepting TNMM

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the TP analysis of the assessee whereby the assessee compared its profit margin with its comparable companies and claimed that the margin it earned in the international transaction was IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Page 11 of 42 comparable with the profit margins of the comparable companies. The TPO, while accepting TNMM

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

transfer price as the arm's length price. Then to make a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible. 10. Similarly, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v CIT [2016] 381 ITR 117 at para 86 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under:- "MSIL's higher operating margins

M/S SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

Transfer Pricing Officer or for that matter any other authority cannot apply or direct to apply any other method. It is equally not permissible to invent a new procedure and try to fit such procedure within any of the existing procedures prescribed under these methods. However, although there is no express reference to any method employed for determining

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 regulations under the Act. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of application of turnover filter and his action in excluding companies by following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra). 13.6. Ld.AR submitted that though this decision was rendered with reference

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

transfer pricing adjustment suggested by the TPO. The adjustment confirmed by the DRP was added to the total income of the assessee by the AO in the fair order of assessment. Against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 24. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel

MOOG CONTROLS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

transfer price of uncontrolled independent companies have component of return for functions and return for working capital. It was submitted that though the assessee is not denying this fact, but the return for working capital position between the assessee and the companies selected as comparable vary due to their characterisation and there exists a methodology which is also well accepted

EBIX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 143(2) was\nserved to the assessee on 28 June 2022.\n7. The assessee entered an international transaction.\nConsequently, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, the technical unit responsible for evaluating\ninternational transactions, on 19/10/2022. This reference was\nsubsequently approved by the Principal Commissioner of\nIncome Tax.\n8. It was found that assessee has entered

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue and the assessment order passed is quashed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mphasis Limited, First Floor, Laurel Building, Deputy Commissioner Of Bagmane Technology Park, Cv Income Tax-Circle Vs. Raman Nagar, Karnataka 560093 4(1)(1), Bangalore Pan – Aaacb6820C Appellant Respondent : Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri Assessee By Ankur Pd : Dr. Divya K. J - Cit Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-04-2026

transfer pricing adjustment amounted to Rs. 1,17,20,60,655. In the draft assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) 6. disallowed the deduction claim under Section 10A of the Act Page 3 of 8 amounting to Rs. 239

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

239 and 240 of the Paper Book to point out that the figures of earlier year are available in the Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and even in the Notes to accounts. He further pointed out that this year details are available in public domain, may be, not at that relevant time. He further pointed out that

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

239 and 240 of the Paper Book to point out that the figures of earlier year are available in the Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and even in the Notes to accounts. He further pointed out that this year details are available in public domain, may be, not at that relevant time. He further pointed out that

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C 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 Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

transfer pricing segment was restored to the AO / TPO to examine whether the assesee had recovered expenditure incurred in respect of warranty services with the 27 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. mark-up of 5%. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-2010, which has confirmed

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

Transfer Pricing adjustment to the value of international transactions. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP ought to have excluded following companies from the final set of comparables: i) Portescap India Pvt. Ltd. ii) Rexnord Electronics & Controls Ltd. iii) Premium Transmission Pvt. Ltd. iv) Remi Elektrotechnik

M/S. TESCO HINDUSTAN SERVICE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

section 92C, the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a)……. to (d)…….. (e) transactional net margin method, by which,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated

STMICROELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

Transfer Pricing (TP) issues and calculation of the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transaction between the assessee and its Associated Enterprise (AE), during the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that some comparables were taken by the TPO in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) and the Tribunal has examined

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.) A. No.1423/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071 Pan Aaacg 2435N Appellant Respondent.

Transfer Pricing Issues. 4.0 Before dealing with the grounds of appeal raised, the facts related to the T.P. issues are, briefly, summarized as under :- 4.1 The assessee company is engaged in the provision of services in two segments, namely Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Software Development Services. For the year under consideration, the assessee reported the following international transactions

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

transfer pricing strategy adopted by the AE, the profitability of Volvo India is the determining factor in deciding the management fee and is not based on the services rendered by it. 4. The taxpayer changed its stand many times during the course of proceedings that the payment is made towards marketing services and / or brand, trademark etc. 5. The taxpayer

M/S VERIFONE INDIA TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act. 3. The learned AO/ learned TPO/Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting comparability analysis undertaken in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters for the purpose of determining the Arm's Length