M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

269 37 Telephones 4,765 38 Factory Equipments- M S Pallets 15,693 39 Equipments- Paper Shredder Machine 3,811 40 Weighing Scale 2,403 41 Weighing Scale 3,461 Page 5 of 64 42 Factory Equipments- Hand Pallet truck 3,206 43 Weighing Scale 5,864 44 Electric Equipments 2,236 45 Electric Equipments 5,610 46 Wall Mounting

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 144C(5) of the Act. The TPO revised the TP Addition in respect of ECB from INR.75,39,13,371 to INR.62,88,86,271/- vide order dated 22/01/2024. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed final Assessment Order, dated 24/10/2024, making Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.62,88,86,271/- in respect of interest on ECB. 6. Being /aggrieved, the Assessee

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

269 Shortfall being adjustment 8,94,76,448 ALP-OR Revenue from AE 52,47,47,888 Revenue from AE as % of total Revenue 60.56 Proportionate Adjustment 5,41,86,937 22.4.2 The above shortfall of Rs. 5,41,86,937/-is treated as transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA in respect ,-of software development segment of the taxpayer's international

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment. 3. Ground Nos.1 to 1.3 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. 4. Ground Nos.2, 2.1 & 2.2 are not pressed before us. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed as not pressed. Software Development (IT Segment): 5. Now coming to ground No.3.1 we once again reproduce the ground as follows: “3.1 The Learned TPO/Hon

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 officer under section 92CA of the Act. 3. Upon receipt of reference, Ld.TPO called for economic details of international transaction entered into by assessee with its associated enterprise in form 3 CEB. From the details filed Page 6 of 36 IT(TP)A No.2347/Bang/2019 A. Y : 2015 – 16 Ld.TPO observed that assessee had following transaction with its associated

M/S. STEER ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

section 144C(5), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall issue the directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. In case the Assessee chooses not to filed objections before

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

transfer pricing provisions to include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert whether or not it is formal or in writing or whether or not it is intended to be enforceable by legal proceeding. There is no reference to any transaction having necessarily including profit element or IT(TP)A No.1497/Bang/2010 Page 24 of 37 mark

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

NAGRAVISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

transfer pricing benchmarking undertaken by the appellant. 4.0 That DRP erred in law by confirming the arms' length price determined by AO/ TPO on account of following comparables inclusion/ exclusion: 4.1 That DRP erred in law by confirming AO/TPO rejecting the comparable companies without considering the functions, filters applied by the Appellant. 4.2 That DRP/TPO erred in selecting 'Persistent Systems

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S UNISYS INDIA (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

section. These conclusions clearly emanate from para 17 of the Hon’ble Court’s judgment. 12. The situation with which we are concerned in the present case is a situation where there is positive income of the eligible unit then the same should be allowed deduction u/s.10B of the Act without setting of the loss of non-eligible unit

M/S UNISYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

section. These conclusions clearly emanate from para 17 of the Hon’ble Court’s judgment. 12. The situation with which we are concerned in the present case is a situation where there is positive income of the eligible unit then the same should be allowed deduction u/s.10B of the Act without setting of the loss of non-eligible unit

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

pricing adjustment. 1.9 The learned AO/learned TPO have ignored the fact that Guarantee in the instant case is not in the nature of service and therefore not an international transaction. 2. Corporate Tax 3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act 3.1 The learned AO erred in disallowing the weighted deduction Rs.53,72,75,727 claimed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

pricing adjustment. 1.9 The learned AO/learned TPO have ignored the fact that Guarantee in the instant case is not in the nature of service and therefore not an international transaction. 2. Corporate Tax 3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act 3.1 The learned AO erred in disallowing the weighted deduction Rs.53,72,75,727 claimed

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

pricing adjustment. 1.9 The learned AO/learned TPO have ignored the fact that Guarantee in the instant case is not in the nature of service and therefore not an international transaction. 2. Corporate Tax 3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act 3.1 The learned AO erred in disallowing the weighted deduction Rs.53,72,75,727 claimed