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

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

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

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

5. CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd. 18.50% 6. R S Software (India) Ltd. 20.87% 7. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. 24.83% 8. Nihilent Technologies Ltd. 26.36% 9. Inteq Software Pvt. Ltd. 28.20% 10. Persistent Systems Ltd. 30.89% 11. Infobeans Technologies Ltd. 32.42% 12. Thirdware Solution Ltd. 36.90% 13. Infosys Ltd. 38.61% 14. Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. 39.28% 15. Cybage Software

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

5. Companies which have more than 25% related party transactions of the sales or expenses - excluded. 6. Companies which have export service income less than 75% of the sales - excluded. 7. Companies with employee cost less than 25% of turnover - excluded. 8. Companies having negative net worth 9. Companies having persistent losses for any 2 out of 3 years

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

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

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

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 section 144C(13) of the Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) and Page 2 of 27 25(2), New Delhi (AD") for the assessment year

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. 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

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

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

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

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

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

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

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

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional

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

transferring an already existing department does not arise. ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 26 of 60 2.55 Thus, all the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash v. Union of India (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee Company. 2.56 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional