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 provisions. In fact, Section 92(3) of the Act, specifically prohibits determination of TP adjustment which has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax in India. By virtue of the adjustment, the Ld.TPO has in effect acted contrary to Section 92(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the adjustments made u/s. 92CA are without

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass the order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before the said date. [Clauses 25,39 and 40

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

transfer pricing Officer in not including all these comparables. 39. The ground No. four of the appeal is against the charging of interest on overdue receivable from its associated enterprises. The assessee says that it is not arising from any capital financing transaction but in course of provision of services to its associated enterprises. Continuing debit balance of trade receivable

CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

40',201 in respect of provision of IT enabled services ("ITeS"); 2.3. INR 2,815,469 in respect of provision of marketing support services ("MSS"); and 2.4. I NR 500,298 in respect of interest on delayed receivables. Grounds relating to transfer pricing ("TP matter) 3. The learned TPO/ AO erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting comparable companies

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. (Academic) 2 2 2 2 Disallowance of depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. (Academic) 2 2 2 2 Disallowance of depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. (Academic) 2 2 2 2 Disallowance of depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. (Academic) 2 2 2 2 Disallowance of depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. (Academic) 2 2 2 2 Disallowance of depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40

QUINTILES RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the\ndepartmental appeal is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass\nthe order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before\nthe said date. [Clauses 25,39 and 40

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 (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United

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 (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

transfer pricing issues contested in the respective\ngrounds for the years under consideration as tabulated\nhereinabove, in the assessee's appeal stands withdrawn. The\nassessee accordingly filed revised grounds of appeal pursuant to\nthe MAP proceedings having culminated.\nAccordingly, the respective grounds mentioned hereinabove\nbecomes infructuous in both assessee's as well as departmental\nappeals.\nAccordingly, ground

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

Section 40(a)(i)/(ia), treating the payments as royalty for copyright use. The assessee's transfer pricing issues were

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. The Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 5.Non-allowance of appropriate adjustment to the comparable companies by the Ld. DRP and AO/ TPO The Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred

ALCON LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

transfer pricing adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92BA read with 40(2)(b) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations. 2. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92BA read with 40(2)(b) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations. 2. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer