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 analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

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 analysis. The basis for the costs incurred, the activities for which they were incurred, and the benefit accruing to the Taxpayer from those activities must all be proved to determine first, whether, and how much, of such expenditure was for the purpose of benefit of the Taxpayer, and secondly, whether that amount meets ALP criterion. In the present

RANDOX LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the associated enterprise. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the associated enterprise. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts

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

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

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

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

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

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic 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

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

251,796,576 Nuance Inc. owns the intangible property rights in the products sold to customers. Thus, NTS India has no ownership right, legal or economic, on any intangible generated or on the outcome of any intangible generated or arising during the course of rendering of medical transcription services. Risk Analysis This section provides a discussion of the risks that

M/S. WALVOIL FLUID POWER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

251 15,39,86,720 13,47,44,093 30,56,52,601 30,49,51,994 33,77,07,924 64% 57% 31% 88% 72% 68% 71% Percentage - % 70% Average 8. The DRP’s observation with regard to scrap sale is relevant as one of the contentions of the assessee for higher material cost is the wastage

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

price of international transactions. Before parting, we may also refer to the transfer pricing order for assessment year 2013-14 in assessee's own case, wherein Cades Digitech Pvt. Ltd. was considered as comparable for design engineering segment. Further, the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1478/Del/2015, relating to assessment year

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

price of international transactions. Before parting, we may also refer to the transfer pricing order for assessment year 2013-14 in assessee's own case, wherein Cades Digitech Pvt. Ltd. was considered as comparable for design engineering segment. Further, the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1478/Del/2015, relating to assessment year

M/S. DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Transfer Pricing Officer. • Trend analysis of the revenue depict an abnormal/supernormal growth for the financial year ended 31st March 2006 vis-à-vis 31st March 2005 and 31st March 2004. • Percentage of employee cost to revenue is 23%, which is below the qualifying percentage of 25% • 16. ACE Software Exports Limited (ACE Software) should be Rejected The Honourable

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and are subject to TDS u/s 194J. The DRP directed the AO to examine Page 10 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A Nos. 557 & 558/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 20/Bang/2017 whether the TDS has been deducted on the above-mentioned expenses. 3.3 The DRP accepted assessee’s without prejudice contention regarding

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and are subject to TDS u/s 194J. The DRP directed the AO to examine Page 10 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A Nos. 557 & 558/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 20/Bang/2017 whether the TDS has been deducted on the above-mentioned expenses. 3.3 The DRP accepted assessee’s without prejudice contention regarding

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.666/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

251 to 265 of the paper book. The Ld A.R invited our attention to page 260 of the paper book and submitted that the TPO has collected segmental details of Software Development activity from M/s Acropetal Technologies Ltd. According to the information so collected by the TPO, the turnover of Software development segment was Rs.81.40 crores, while its total turnover

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

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.70.71 lakhs instead of Rs.40.71 lakhs. Accordingly he submitted that the there is excess TP adjustment by Rs.30.00 lakhs. 14. The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the 3 comparable companies selected by TPO, following two companies have been held to be under good comparables in the case of Electronic Imaging India

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.70.71 lakhs instead of Rs.40.71 lakhs. Accordingly he submitted that the there is excess TP adjustment by Rs.30.00 lakhs. 14. The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the 3 comparable companies selected by TPO, following two companies have been held to be under good comparables in the case of Electronic Imaging India

MAXIM INDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.411/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

251 to 265 of the paper book. The Ld A.R invited our attention to page 260 of the paper book and submitted that the TPO has collected segmental details of Software Development activity from M/s Acropetal Technologies Ltd. According to the information so collected by the TPO, the turnover of Software development segment was Rs.81.40 crores, while its total