M/S INATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

b) “eligible assessee” means – (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA;” 5.1.3 In the case on hand, there has been an order under section 92CA of the Act passed

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

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

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, any variation in the income

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. 6. It is not in dispute that the Assessee is an eligible Assessee and therefore the Assessment in the case of the Assessee is to be completed keeping in mind the statutory provisions of Sec.143(3), 144C and Sec.153

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

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

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

1 to 9 raised by the assessee.” We have noticed that the assessee has voluntarily disallowed the loss arising on restatement of foreign hedge transactions and hedging on ECB loans, since both the items are relating to capital account transactions. We also notice that the AO has allowed the loss arising on restatement of trade debtors, trade creditors and other

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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , 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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

ASST.C.I.T., 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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, 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

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

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. 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Now we reproduce the grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 as under: Ay 2015-16: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. I. Transfer Pricing The learned Assessing Office (-AO"), learned Transfer Pricing Officer 1. ("learned

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Now we reproduce the grounds of appeal in IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 as under: Ay 2015-16: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. I. Transfer Pricing The learned Assessing Office (-AO"), learned Transfer Pricing Officer 1. ("learned

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

271 of the Act. 11. Other grounds 11.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 409,68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant