SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 is highly illegal, improper and unjust and also in the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (3) The learned respondent seriously erred in not noticing the fact that in view of the pendency of the various legal litigation on the properties, the appellant

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

section 143(3A) and (3B) of the act, for the assessment year 2016- 17 on following grounds of appeal: “1. JURISDICTION 1.1. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in referring the case to the learned Transfer Pricing Page 2 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Officer (TPO) in violation of Instruction

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

250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Facts of the case in IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 for the assessment year

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

250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Facts of the case in IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 for the assessment year

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law. a) The order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - Circle 11(3) [‘AO’] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’], and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Bangalore [‘the CIT(A)’] under section 250

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 PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO with respect to payment of royalty @ 1%. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 40 of 62 10. The ld.AR submitted that this issue is covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.506/Bang/2016 vide order dated 6/12/2021 for the asst. year 2011-12 wherein

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO with respect to payment of royalty @ 1%. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 40 of 62 10. The ld.AR submitted that this issue is covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.506/Bang/2016 vide order dated 6/12/2021 for the asst. year 2011-12 wherein

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 Officer are bad in law a) The order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - Circle I 1(1)['AO'] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'], and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV. Bangalore ['the CIT(A)'] under section 250

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.

Section 92CA of the Act dated 31.10.2017 stated that acquisition of shares pursuant to the SPA, Diageo Pic (the ultimate holding company of Rely BV) acquired controlling stake in USL and, hence, the determination of ALP must be determined based on a valuation of USL as an entity. Therefore, the TPO held that the price of USL shares

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.

Section 92CA of the Act dated 31.10.2017 stated that acquisition of shares pursuant to the SPA, Diageo Pic (the ultimate holding company of Rely BV) acquired controlling stake in USL and, hence, the determination of ALP must be determined based on a valuation of USL as an entity. Therefore, the TPO held that the price of USL shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. BRADY COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

transfer pricing laws. International precedent pertaining to similar transactions. This scenario is elaborated in detail by U.S. Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Relevant portions of the example mentioning the same is reproduced below: Example 2. (i) S, a U.S. corporation, is the exclusive distributor for FP, its foreign parent. There are no changes in the beginning

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

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 of the Tribunal, we allow this ground of the assessee. Ground No.8 12. The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that Rohan Motors Ltd., and Sicagen India Ltd., were considered by the TPO as comparable companies after

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 Officer in his order dated January 30, 2015 and the DRP Directions dated December 17, 2015. Other Corporate Tax Matters - A. Additional Foreign Tax Credit Claim: 4. The Appellant has been filing its return of income in India and in all the other counties where a Permanent Establishment ("PE) / Branch is established as per the applicable local laws

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 Officer in his order dated January 30, 2015 and the DRP Directions dated December 17, 2015. Other Corporate Tax Matters - A. Additional Foreign Tax Credit Claim: 4. The Appellant has been filing its return of income in India and in all the other counties where a Permanent Establishment ("PE) / Branch is established as per the applicable local laws

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

250 of the Act dated 30.6.2024 passed by the\nld. CIT(A) Bangalore 15 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of\nthe case.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned Appellate order\nconfirming the additions of alleged Business income amounting to\nRs.111,53,50,377/- for the A.Y.2017-18 on the ground of alleged\nexchange

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 analysis submitted by the Assessee; c. Adopting inappropriate filterss like 25% RPT filter, one sided turnover filter, etc in the process of selecting comparables; d. Rejecting Priya International Limited as a comparable as selected by the Appellant in the TP study on unjustifiable grounds; e. Adopting companies as comparables even though they are not comparable in respect

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 :

250(6) on 06.11.2012. 2. In the order passed under section 143(3), transfer pricing additions were made for transactions