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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

MATCHMOVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(3), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, ground no. 4 of the Appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.Ittpa No. 2255/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

section 274 read with 270A of the Act on account of under reporting income. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. Prayer: The Appellant prays for appropriate relief

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

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

9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 10B deals with determination of Arm’s Length Price under Section 92C of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee had calculated the rate of interest at 7.50% and 8.49%. However, the Assessing Officer has scaled down the same

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

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

270A of the Act. 5.2. The Learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in computing and levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 2. Ground Nos.1 to 1.9 are general in nature, which do not require adjudication. 2.1 Ground Nos.2 to 2.8, ground Nos.3 to 3.5 and ground Nos.4 to 4.4 are not pressed before us. Accordingly

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Documentation ('TP Study') maintained by the Appellant as per Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') on account of mere difference of interpretation in selection of filters. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of Ld. TPO/ NFAC. 4.2. The Ld. TPO's/ NFAC's action

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

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the NFAC/ DRP/TPO erred in excluding functionally comparable companies:  Isummation Technologies Private Limited  Yudiz solutions Private Limited  E-zest solutions Private Limited  Evoke Technologies Private Limited  Indianic Infotech Limited  Intelligrape software Private Limited  Blive web solutions Private Limited Page 4 IT(TP)A No. 422/Bang/2022

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

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC IT BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, 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.185/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule IOD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules"); 4.2. conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on the application of additional/ modified filters in determining the arm's length price of contract manufacturing segment and rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

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")

270A of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO have erred in issuing a demand notice under section 156 of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add. alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavit(Tp)A No.1590/Bang/2024

9. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for underreporting of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting the interest in accordance with the provisions of section 244A of the Act. 11. The Ld. AO has erred

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

transfer pricing order issued by the learned TPO and confirming the draft assessment order. 13. Non grant of credit for entire Tax Deducted at Source (`TDS') 13.1. The NeAC has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for the entire TDS of INR 554.53.87.685 claimed in the return of income. 14. Short grant of Foreign Tax Credit

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

9 7. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the reference made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is void ab initio and bad in law, as the AO has not recorded any reasons in the order passed under section

M/S. QUEST SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9(1)(vi) of the Act vide the Finance Act, 2012, the definition of 'royalty' under the India- Ireland DTAA has not undergone any change and that, therefore, the beneficial provisions of the DTAA would continue to apply in the Appellant's case. 3. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A