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

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37 of the I T Act. 16. The Learned AO erred in not giving TDS credit amounting to Rs.1,37,88,075/- and no reasons or explanations have been given for denying the credit. ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B& C 17. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, B& C of the Act. Further prays that

M/S ALPHA ELSEC DEFENCE & AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

253(1)(d) provides for appeal only when order has been made under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. Annexure E order is an order made under section 143(3) of the Act and not a final revised assessment order made in compliance with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel. The assessee, hence

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253,217 214,308,033 283,206,248 Expenses Reimbursed 9,650,786 26,519,375 25,773,664 Remuneration to KMP 61,447,016 83,854,419 95,990,266 Reimbursement of Income 2,224,914 Electricity Charges Paid 9,462,212 Total RPT 482,768,179 623,303,216 960,709,645 Total Sales 1

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 92CA of the Act as per the communication/order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the directions of DRP. SI.No Description Amount 1 Arm's Length Price difference in the royalty Rs.20,27,37,762/- paid 2 Arm's Length Price difference in Rs.253,10,21,733 / - distribution segment 3 Arm's Length Price difference in the Software Rs.110

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

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

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

253,217 214,308,033 283,206,248 services Expenses 9,650,786 26,519,375 25,773,664 Reimbursed Remuneration 61,447,016 83,854,419 95,990,266 to KMP Reimbursemen 2,224,914 t of Income Electricity 9,462,212 Charges Paid Total RPT 482,768,179 623,303,216 960,709,645 Total Sales 1

M/S. TECHNICOLOR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144(13) dated 02.01.2015 on the Appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act") against the order dated January 02, 2015 (received on February 17, 2015) passed under section 143(3) read with

M/S. PLURALSIGHT LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DCIT ASMT, CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Pluralsight Llc, Dcit, 182N Union Avenue, Farmington, Asmt, Utah, Foreign, Vs. Circle – 2(1), United States. Bengaluru. Pan : Aahcp 5337 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023

prices are agreed between the assessee and the customers. In this regard, sample Master Subscription Agreement (‘MSA’) which the assessee enters with subscribers/customers is enclosed at pages 97-108 of the Paper Book. Subsequent to entering into agreements and payment of subscription amount, the customers are provided with login information (login ID and password). After the customers

PLURALSIGHT LLC,UTAH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

prices are agreed between the assessee and the customers. In this regard, sample Master Subscription Agreement (‘MSA’) which the assessee enters with subscribers/customers is enclosed at pages 97-108 of the Paper Book. Subsequent to entering into agreements and payment of subscription amount, the customers are provided with login information (login ID and password). After the customers

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

d) The fourth test that the functions of the corporation are of such public importance and so closely related to Governmental functions, as already discussed in detail in the foregoing submissions, must also be said to have been satisfied. (e) The fifth test is not applicable to the assessee’s case in as much as the project is novice

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

d) The fourth test that the functions of the corporation are of such public importance and so closely related to Governmental functions, as already discussed in detail in the foregoing submissions, must also be said to have been satisfied. (e) The fifth test is not applicable to the assessee’s case in as much as the project is novice

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

d) The fourth test that the functions of the corporation are of such public importance and so closely related to Governmental functions, as already discussed in detail in the foregoing submissions, must also be said to have been satisfied. (e) The fifth test is not applicable to the assessee’s case in as much as the project is novice

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

d) The fourth test that the functions of the corporation are of such public importance and so closely related to Governmental functions, as already discussed in detail in the foregoing submissions, must also be said to have been satisfied. (e) The fifth test is not applicable to the assessee’s case in as much as the project is novice

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

d) The fourth test that the functions of the corporation are of such public importance and so closely related to Governmental functions, as already discussed in detail in the foregoing submissions, must also be said to have been satisfied. (e) The fifth test is not applicable to the assessee’s case in as much as the project is novice