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

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

via the e-proceedings, but it is\npertinent to mention here that the appellant assessee filed an unsigned FORM No.-68.\nThe AO gave one more opportunity to the appellant assessee to be heard in the favor of\nnatural justice and then rejected the Immunity application of the Appellant Assessee\naccordingly.\nADDITION NO.- I: Disallowance of Employees contribution towards

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

transferred to a new business in that area or in any other backward area and the total value of the machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed twenty per cent of the total value of the machinery or Page 31 of 39 plant used in the business, then, for the purposes of clause (iii) of this

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

transfer, then, for the purposes of the deduction under this section, the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods as on that date : Provided that where, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

36 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n() Under 144C(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 DRP IS ONLY REQUIRED TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE AO. The relevant sub-section is reproduced below\n(5) The Dispute. Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks

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

1) or sub-section (2A), or the determination of any cost or expense allocated or apportioned, or, as the case may be, contributed under sub-section (2) or sub- section (2A), has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax or increasing the loss, as the case may be, computed on the basis of entries made in the books

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing analysis, the purpose is not to compare profit of the tested party with that of the comparables but the purpose is to compare the prices charged by the tested, party with the prices charged by the comparables although when TNMM is adopted as MA.M, the process of such price comparison is by comparing profits of tested party with

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

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

36-38, 38A 19-20, 6. Attribution -- -- 23-25 Add. 26-31 22-26 Ground 7. 80G -- -- -- -- -- 37 Representative 8. -- -- -- -- 34 24-25 assessee Claim for 53-54 53-54 deduction – 9. -- -- -- (Additional (Additional 38 proviso to Grounds) Grounds) 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit 24 -- 27 -- -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- 22 26 50 41 41 Incorrect 12. Refund 25 -- -- -- -- -- Calculation

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(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. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

pricing adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. The details of the additions proposed by the Ld.AO are as under: Total income as per ITR Rs. 39,82,64,080/- Add: TP addition u/s 92CA Rs.41,59,26,724/- Add: Disallowance u/s 80G Rs.5,50,000/- Add: Disallowance u/s 40A(7) Rs. 1,84,63,980/- Total

M/S EMERSON AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS PVT. LTD,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

Section 144C. 6. Consequent to DRP's Direction, transfer Pricing officer-1(3)(1), Bangalore has passed the order u/s 92CA on 11.10.2018, and has concluded that an adjustment is required with regard to transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA: SN Description Adjustment u/s. 92 CA (In Rs) 1 Manufacturing Segment 13,15,83,4222 2 Trading & Distribution

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

Pricing Agreement, the assessee has filed modified ITR u/s 139 r.w.s. 92CD of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] on 19.10.2020 declaring income of Rs.23,19,09,830/-. The other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. 2.1 The assessee company is engaged in providing software development services including testing, infrastructure support and other related services

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

pricing; (c) technical information, including research, development, procedures, algorithms, data, designs. and know-how; (d) business information, including operations, planning, marketing interests, and products; (e) the terms of any agreement entered into between the Parties and the discussions, negotiations and proposals related thereto; and (f) information acquired during any facilities tours. 3. The Party receiving Confidential Information (a "Recipient'') will