EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Transfer Agreements after carrying out independent third-party valuation and purchase price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

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

32 of the transfer pricing study\nreport relates to the managerial function, establishment of stores,\nresearch and development functions, operational functions, sales\nfunctions etc. and it concluded that the Singapore entity does not\nperform higher functions than the Indian entity along with the\nFrance AE. The transaction is of purchase of goods from\nSingapore entity by an Indian entity. Therefore

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total\npurchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets\nsuch as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation\nwas claimed under section 32 of the Act.\n30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the\nclaim on the ground that the assets were not eligible intangible assets.\nHowever

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

32. The assessee has also asked for exclusion of Innovana Think Ltd stating that it is a software development company and its research and development activities, and ownership of intellectual property rights and absence of any segmental data makes it not comparable. The similar arguments were raised before the learned TPO wherein it the learned transfer pricing officer held that

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing provisions would be applicable only if the relationship of two enterprises qualifies as associated enterprises within the meaning of section 92A of the Income Tax Act. The relationship between United Breweries Limited (UBL) and Force India is not one of those relationships mentioned in 5.92A (2) of the Act. There is no dispute that neither United Breweries

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing provisions would be applicable only if the relationship of two enterprises qualifies as associated enterprises within the meaning of section 92A of the Income Tax Act. The relationship between United Breweries Limited (UBL) and Force India is not one of those relationships mentioned in 5.92A (2) of the Act. There is no dispute that neither United Breweries

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

32,002/-. As per Note 26 at p25 of annual report the revenue\nfrom export of software service was Rs19,48,38,068/- and as per\nNote 25, the foreign branch expenditure was Rs. 18,03,89,196/- As\nper information at page 2 of the annual report revenue mainly\nrepresent income from professional services from Dubai.\n10.1.2 In this

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 53. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 74. The facts and circumstances of the case in this

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

price determined by the TPO is upheld for the above reasons and the grounds No. 5 to 10 raised by the Assessee are accordingly dismissed. M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. 26. Ground Nos. 11 to 14 deal with aspect of the method and computation mechanism adopted by the learned TPO. As mentioned above, the TPO has valued the shares

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

price determined by the TPO is upheld for the above reasons and the grounds No. 5 to 10 raised by the Assessee are accordingly dismissed. M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. 26. Ground Nos. 11 to 14 deal with aspect of the method and computation mechanism adopted by the learned TPO. As mentioned above, the TPO has valued the shares

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing study of the Appellant and using arbitrary filters for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to ITeS. 4.1 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in applying the turnover filter with lower limit of INR 1 Crore without appreciating that the Appellant's turnover was INR 233.97 crore, and therefore, ought

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

32 of 110 aforesaid APA dated 24.03.2023 subject to the Appellant having filed a modified return of income as is required in law. 17. The next issue relates to the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of Specified Domestic Transaction (SDT) made. The TPO has made adjustment to the tune of Rs.107.92 crores and it was confirmed

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing officer appears to have passed the order dated 25 July 2022.” 12. In RAPISCAN SYSTEMS PVT. LIMITED (supra), the Division Bench of Telangana High Court while considering Section 144C of the IT Act at paragraph 32 and 33 has observed as follows: “32. In view of the forgoing discussion, there is no cavil of doubt that the Assessing

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 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 92(1) of the Income-tax Act mandates computation of income arising from international transactions having regard to the arm’s length price. Thus, the statutory framework itself limits the scope of transfer pricing adjustments only to transactions entered with associated enterprises. Domestic transactions, even if they form part of the same segment, are outside the purview of transfer

EBIX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

price\nand total operating revenue of the assessee from ticket\nsegment, instead of applying it on the revenue from\nassociated enterprises only.\nV. That the learned AO has also erred both in law and on\nfacts in law in disallowing the claim of depreciation of\n1,845,615/– under section 32 (1) of the act.\nThat while making the aforesaid