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

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

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the present case the TPO had proposed an adjustment of Rs.31,26,65,872/on account of arm's length price vide its order dated 21 .10.2016, out of which the adjustment of Rs.25,23,76,5211- was made in the trading segment, and the adjustment of Rs.6

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld AO erred in not allowing set off of current year losses and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 4,98,73,540 and Rs. 4,59,11,799 aggregating to Rs. 9,57,85,339 Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing documentation requirements. Selection of companies earning super normal profits as comparables 3. Erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. Non-provision of adjustment for risk differences 4. a) Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant operates as a risk free service provider and all the key risks

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

transfer pricing adjustment to the value of international transaction; 16. without prejudice to above, erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Assessee vis-à-vis the comparables. Adjustment of INR 35,67,86,587 towards selling, marketing and distribution expense incurred by the Appellant (treated as AMP expenditure) 17. erred

LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing (“TP”) adjustment of INR 4,27,47,621 to the returned income of the Appellant and in holding that the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (“AEs”) in the manufacturing segment were not at arm’s length. Rejection of Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method adopted as the most appropriate method by the Appellant

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

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

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the assessee and upholds undertaking a new search beyond the due date prescribed for maintaining the TP documentation and also Page 2 of 40 rejecting the use of multiple year data by the assessee in its TP documentation. 2. Impugned order erroneously determines TP adjustment in relation to trading segment by attributing notional shortfall

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

price of IP received by Appellant from its AE i.e., Practo Pte. Ltd., Singapore ought to be treated as capital receipt and not chargeable to income tax. 12.2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP/Learned AO while computing long term capital gain

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 Officer (learned TPO') and the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (`Hon'ble CIT(A)') grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 44,32,02,099 in respect of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (`AEs') under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The learned AO/ learned

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

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 Officer (learned TPO') and the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (`Hon'ble CIT(A)') grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 44,32,02,099 in respect of the Appellant's international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (`AEs') under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The learned AO/ learned

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

transfer pricing documentation report maintained, for the determination of the Arm's Length Price [ALP] in connection with the impugned international transaction of software development/IT support services and holding that the Appellant's international transaction is not at arm's length. b) The TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting the benchmarking analysis of Intra group services such