DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing rules. We direct the Ld.AO/TPO to consider the segments of the assessee under the receipt of business development services from its AE denovo in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 5-7 and 9-10 stands allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue’s appeal

DCIT vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, revenue’s appeal and C

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S Jayaramanrevenue’S Appeal

260A is pending on the said issue. 9. The CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the AO to exclude Nucleus Net Soft and GIS_Ltd. from the final set of comparables without appreciating the fact that the assesee had not objected to the adoption of Nucleus Net Soft and GIS Ltd., as a comparable before the TPO. 10. The CIT (Appeals

M/S AMD RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

TRANSFER PRICING (INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES) 8. The lower income tax authorities have erred in: (i) Ignoring the business, commercial and industry realities and economic circumstances applicable to the Appellant; (ii) Making adjustment for notional interest on extended payment terms given to AE without appreciating that there is no real income arising to the Appellant; and (iii) Not appreciating that

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

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

transfer the rest of the proceeds to the assessee. Therefore it is clear that, the AEs of the assessee are rendering the services and not vice versa as understood by the TPO. One of the services rendered by the AEs is collection proceeds from the customers to the assessee which is IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

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

transfer the rest of the proceeds to the assessee. Therefore it is clear that, the AEs of the assessee are rendering the services and not vice versa as understood by the TPO. One of the services rendered by the AEs is collection proceeds from the customers to the assessee which is IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page

TYCO FIRE SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Transfer Pricing 45,07,92,071 as discussed above in para 2 Add: Disallowance of Expense 19,84,074 made to non-resident as discussed above in para 3 Total income assessed: 45,45,50,571 4.4 Accordingly, the AO framed the assessment order as follows: Total income as per 17,74,426 return of income Add: Difference between

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

260A have been preferred against the said directions contained in the orders dated 30.08.2011 in ITA No. 1410/Bangalore/2010 and 28.03.2011 in IT(TP) No 1076/Bangalore/2011 for the A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order

DCIT vs. M/S CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

260A have been filed before Hon'ble High Court which are still pending. 14. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. IT(TP)A No.614/Bang/2013 & CO No.166/Bang/2015 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS & IMPORTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

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

price and in the event if M/s Manar Developers (P) Ltd. failed to pay, the appellant company had a right to purchase 9 flats in the property for recovery of dues. The appellant states that this was not acceptable & hence the appellant company did not proceeded further with it. It was submitted that the appellant had not affixed signature

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273, wherein it was held that the assessing officer had no power to rework the book profit if the profits were computed in accordance with Parts II and II of Schedule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO while passing draft assessment order made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the expenses claimed as reimbursement of cost amounting to Rs.5,62,89,400/-. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) while considering the issue observed and held as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO while passing draft assessment order made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the expenses claimed as reimbursement of cost amounting to Rs.5,62,89,400/-. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) while considering the issue observed and held as under

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 40(a)(ia) for the purpose of computing profits and gains of business. 8. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the relief, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal on the issue in assessee’s own case for earlier year, which has not reached its finality and appeal u/s 260A has been filed before

M/S. SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRLCE- 12(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

260A of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2020 in ITA No.180/2017, restored the matter to the ITAT. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider afresh, the claim of the assessee u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follow:- “10. Thus, from

M/S SUBEX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

260A of the I.T.Act. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2020 in ITA No.180/2017, restored the matter to the ITAT. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider afresh, the claim of the assessee u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follow:- “10. Thus, from

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CERNER HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.)A.No.1509/Bang/2012 Assessment Year 2008-2009 The Income Tax Officer M/S. Cerner Health Care Ward 11(1), Bangalore. Vs. Solutions P. Ltd., Bangalore – 560 034. Pan Aaccc3795R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. P.K. Srihari For Assessee : Mr. Chavali Narayan Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Bangalore Dated 31.08.2012 For The A.Y. 2008-2009 In Granting Relief To The Assessee By Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act As Well As Section 10A Of The Act.

transferred to the employees of Cerner India from the bank account of Cerner Corporation instead of using the bank account of Cerner India and from May 3 I.T.(T.P.) A.No.1509/Bang/2012 M/s. Cerner Health Care Solutions P. Ltd., Bangalore 2007 onwards, salary to Cerner India employees was paid directly from Cerner India bank account. He submitted that Cerner India reimbursed

M/S IBM SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTENATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

price of the computer programme as goods, either in a medium which stores the software or in a medium by which software is embedded in hardware, which may be then further resold by the distributor to the end-user in India, the distributor making a profit on such resale. Importantly, the distributor does not get the right