IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Transfer Pricing Officer,\nwhere the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed\nunder section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and,\ndisclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and\n(e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.\n(7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE , KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated\nabove

section 270A of the Act.\nThe Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is\nindependent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant\ncraves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of\nthe aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time\nof hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

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

Transfer Pricing addition of INR.62,88,86,271/- is set aside Ground No.1.1 to 1.7 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.2 25. Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act is dismissed as premature IT(TP)A No.2525/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 in nature

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

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

transfer pricing adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 422/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Aptean India Pvt. Ltd., 1/2, 8Th Floor, Level 5, The Assistant Golden Heights, Commissioner Of 59Th C Cross Road, Income Tax, 4Th M Block, Circle – 1(1)(1), Rajajinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 010. Pan: Aaacc5890M Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another General Ground 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless

transfer pricing matters: Grounds relating to disallowance of reimbursement of expenses made to related enterprises under section 40(a)(i) of the Act: 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC pursuant to the directions of the learned panel, has erred in disallowing reimbursement of expenses for payroll processing and leased-line

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

Transfer Pricing adjustment to the value of international transactions. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP ought to have excluded following companies from the final set of comparables: i) Portescap India Pvt. Ltd. ii) Rexnord Electronics & Controls Ltd. iii) Premium Transmission Pvt. Ltd. iv) Remi Elektrotechnik

M/S. AARIS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

transfer pricing study report. i. E-Zest Solutions Ltd. ii. Melstar Information Technologies Limited iii. Nintec Systems Limited iv. Yudiz Solutions Pvt. Limited 3 : 8 The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have erred in rejecting the following additional comparable companies considered by the Appellant at the time of the assessment before the Ld.TPO and the DRP proceedings. i. Indianic Infortech Limited ii. Batchmaster

CARL ZEISS INDIA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 192/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Plot No. 3, Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Bommasandra Industrial Income Tax, Area, Circle 2 (1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 099. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aadcc6152H Appellant Respondent : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Carl Zeiss India" Or "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National Faceless Center, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Assessing Officer" Or The "Ld. Ao"), Dated 25 January 2022 For The Assessment Year ("Ay")

transfer pricing adjustment to international transactions of the Appellant and thereby making adjustment to third party transactions as well which is against TP principles. Page 4 IT(TP)A No. 192/Bang/2022 Consequential grounds: 5. The Ld. AO have erred in initiating penal proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act. 6

AB INBEV GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

transfer pricing adjustment made of INR 84,04,860 under section 10AA of the Act. Part II - Corporate tax adjustments: 5. Grounds against addition on account of unbilled revenue amounting to INR 81,26,36,474 5.1 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition

BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

270A of the Act for underreporting of income.\n10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting the interest in\naccordance with the provisions of section 244A of the Act.\n11. The Ld. AO has erred, in law and on facts in levying\nexcess interest u/s 234C

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 4 to 13 of its appeal pertains to the action of the learned DRP/TPO/AO in benchmarking the payment of royalty at NIL. 6. The facts in brief

MMSH CLINICAL RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

6. The Ld. AO / Ld. TPO erred in computing the margins of the comparable companies by incorrectly classifying operating and non-operating items, resulting in an inaccurate determination of the arm's length price. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

6. Penalty Proceedings 6.1. The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company engaged in design, development and testing of integrated circuits and provides services to its group companies. For the Assessment

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing (‘TP’) documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence; 6.2. Rejecting the filters selected by the Appellant as captured in the TP documentation and adopting certain addition filters which are not in accordance with the jurisprudence laid down by various appellate forums; 6.3. Application of related party transaction

IMS HEALTH ANALYTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

6 onwards)\n6. The Id. A.R. submitted that Datamatics fails the export filter applied by\nthe learned TPO, lacks segmental data and therefore, should be rejected.\n^ Fails export earnings filter proposed to be applied by the learned TPO\nfor the two previous years, i.e., FY2015-16 and FY2014-15\n^ Functionally different - Engaged in KPO services\n^ No segmental

NTT DATA INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 1,09,74,490; 9.2 Without prejudice to our ground of appeal no. 9.1 above, Ld. AO/TPO pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred, in law and facts, by not appreciating that the outstanding trade receivables from its AEs arise from the provision