M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2009-10 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Unit 1, Plot No.78, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Bangalore-560 100. Circle 7(1)(1), Pan : Aaact 4660 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that sufficient explanation was offered by the Appellant to explain the bona fides of its claim and reason for non-filing of appeal against the assessment order. Page 3 of 13 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of the learned

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

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer pricing adjustment without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent as available under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act Erred in computing the arm's length price of the international transactions, without taking into account the benefit of +/- 5 per cent variation from the mean where it is within the range, which is permitted and opted

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

transfer price by INR 271,48,94,872/- with respect to the international transaction rendered by the Appellant under section

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

transfer price by INR 271,48,94,872/- with respect to the international transaction rendered by the Appellant under section

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

transfer pricing adjustment for the alleged excessive AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant. 1.23. The Honorable DRP, learned AO and TPO have erred in not granting appropriate favourable economic adjustments (including the working capital adjustment) when assessing the arm's length nature of alleged international transaction of provision of AMP services. 1.24. The Honorable DRP have erred

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. b) The AO/TPO erred in law and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming non-application of multiple-year data while computing the margin of alleged comparable companies. 4 Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies, by the AO/TPO a) The AO/TPO erred in law and on facts in not allowing

M/S IKA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 28. The TPO is directed to follow the directions as given above in the order for AY 2012-13 in the present AY also. No arguments were advanced on Gr.No.12 and the same is therefore dismissed. Ground 13: Disallowance of prior period expenses

M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(1)(c) is premature. 4. With regard to the legal issue relating to validity of the assessment order, the Ld A.R submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO beyond the time limit IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 prescribed in sec.153 of the Act. We notice that though the assessing officer

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Transfer Pricing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV have erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/-5% range mentioned in the proviso to section 92C(2). 13. REDUCTION IN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION l0A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned

ALCON LABORATORIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

price as permitted to the Appellant under the provisions of Section 92C(2) of the Act. General Grounds 23. The learned AO has erred. in law and in facts, by levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act: Page 5 of 20 IT(TP)A No. 726/Bang/2017 24. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133(6) to call for information from comparable companies and make suitable adjustment on account of capacity utilisation differences. • TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. IT(TP)A 693/ Bang/2017 dated 25 / 11 / 2021- relevant para 11 & 12 at page 3156-3166 of case law compendium. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

transfer pricing documentation requirements and the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the said stand of the learned TPO/AO; 7. The learned AO/ TPO has erred in law and facts by rejecting certain comparable companies considered by the Appellant in the comparability analysis by applying different quantitative and qualitative filters: (a) by rejecting certain comparable companies identified

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

271(1)(c) of the Act.”\nGrounds Nos. 1 to 13 raised by the Assessee are directed against\nthe transfer pricing addition. During the relevant previous year the\nAssessee provided software development services and back office\nsupport services to NTT DATA Group Companies which were utilized\nby the latter for providing services to end customers. The services\nprovided

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 10A." Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has followed the earlier order for the Assessment Year 2004-05 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.598/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. (Since Amalgamated With M/S.Sitel India Pvt. Ltd.) 501, Wing A & B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan: Aaccc0408M … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. ... Respondent & It(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru. … Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee & Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015

transfer pricing falls within the range specified therein. Interest under Section 234B of the Act 20. erred in levy of interest of Rs 7,98,744 under Section 234B of the Act as against Rs 6,98,532; IT(TP)A Nos.452 & 598/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 22 Initiation of penalty proceedings 21. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271

SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.598/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. (Since Amalgamated With M/S.Sitel India Pvt. Ltd.) 501, Wing A & B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan: Aaccc0408M … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bengaluru. ... Respondent & It(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sitel Operating Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. Bengaluru. … Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia & Nikhil Tiwari, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundari Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee & Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2015

transfer pricing falls within the range specified therein. Interest under Section 234B of the Act 20. erred in levy of interest of Rs 7,98,744 under Section 234B of the Act as against Rs 6,98,532; IT(TP)A Nos.452 & 598/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 22 Initiation of penalty proceedings 21. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271

WIPRO 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 for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account