SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

section 144C of the learned dispute resolution panel on 20 May 2024. We find that as per para No 2.3 the learned DRP has directed the learned TPO to adopt the figure for the learning solutions segment and compute the segmental margin. The answer of the learned that TPO is that that only the TPO has adopted the figures

DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE , KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated\nabove

25,45,652 Chinese entity. Assessee stated\nthat this transaction is closely linked to the main international\ntransaction of payment of IT support charges to its associated\nenterprises. Though assessee stated that it has adopted Other\nMethod as the Most Appropriate method and submitted that the\nsame is at arm's length price. The assessee in para

QUINTILES RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the\ndepartmental appeal is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass\nthe order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before\nthe said date. [Clauses 25

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United 10,25

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United 10,25

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

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 adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction is 92,25

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

25,50,240/- under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee’s case was referred to Transfer Pricing

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

25,50,240/- under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee’s case was referred to Transfer Pricing

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

25,240/-.\n3.1.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that\nthe Appellant has entered into international transactions with its\nAssociated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, a reference was made\nunder Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing (“TP) order dated 17.10.2018 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 70 S No Particulars Amount (Rs) A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Brad promotion expenses paid to Force India

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92-CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.? 17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have

KIRLOSKAR TOYOTA TEXTILE MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

25 “16. The Learned Assessing Officer/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant, in compliance with Section

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

section is to provide information on the economic characterisation of NTS India and its AE, based on the functional analysis of the inter-company transactions. This is an important step to enable the execution of the benchmarking analysis. Nuance Inc. performs critical functions of identification of projects, marketing and owns non-routine intangibles. It bears the entrepreneurial risks, being

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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

sections after application of the ALP, in our view, is the Transfer pricing adjustment contemplated in sec.92 of the Act. 39.21 We have prepared certain illustrations in order to explain above points. They are given below:- There are two situations in which the profits of eligible business are inflated. They are (a) Over invoicing revenue (b) Under invoicing expenses

KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 92B of the Act. b. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Act provides for taxing only real income whether received or accrued under the normal provisions. c. Erred in not appreciating the fact that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on a hypothetical and notional basis unless there is material on record that there has been under

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 11.3 Respectfully following the above judgment of coordinate bench

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

25 IT(TP)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 In addition, the US transfer pricing regulations, u/s 482 of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the US regulations') also support the above. Regulation 1.482-1(d)(2) of the US regulation states as follows: "In order to be considered comparable to a controlled transaction, an uncontrolled transaction need not be identical