ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S. TRANSWORLD ICT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

43 of 56 The authorities below are not justified in holding that the 4. amendment to proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is effective from 1-10-2009 was clarificatory and denied the 5% rebate which ought to have been given as per the existing proviso for the respective years. 5. Appropriate Transfer Pricing

M/S TYCO ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal being IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

section 143(1) of the Act to the company. 37. The assessee has filed an application dated 27-06-2019 for admission of the following additional ground; IT(TP)A No.1350 & 1251(B)/201 21 “The ld.TPO and the ld.DRP failed to appreciate the difference in rates of depreciation adopted by the appellant and the comparable companies as selected

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. If the conditions of the first proviso to section 12B(2) are not satisfied the main part of section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax Officer must take into account the full value

M/S. ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

43 of 47 “24. Before doing so, we may point out the following. The assessee in ground Nos.6 to 8 before the Tribunal had contested the issue relating to consideration of the foreign AE as tested party. The assessee has submitted evidences and documents relating to the assessee's transfer pricing documentation, global transfer pricing reports of the foreign

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.22.24 crores. The Ld DRP also confirmed the same. 19.3 The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished various evidences to prove that the sourcing agent has provided services to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has utilized services of one USA entity and one Singapore entity. However, the assessee has paid commission only

CORP ATTIRE,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.22.24 crores. The Ld DRP also confirmed the same. 19.3 The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished various evidences to prove that the sourcing agent has provided services to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has utilized services of one USA entity and one Singapore entity. However, the assessee has paid commission only

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 order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

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 order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment : Rs. 31,69,02,034. 11.1 In the course of proceedings, the TPO noted that the assessee had incurred huge advertisement and selling expenditure in marketing its products. Taking into account the fact that the brand name and logo 'Himalaya' is owned by M/s. Himalaya Global Holding Ltd; Cayman Islands, the TPO held that the legal owner

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

Section 92B r.w.s. 92F(v) it does not necessarily require transfer or assigning of property or creating any right or interest in the property but even an arrangement, understanding or an action in concert having a bearing on the profit, income, losses or assets of the enterprises would fall in the term of international transaction. Since the TPO has considered

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

Section 92B r.w.s. 92F(v) it does not necessarily require transfer or assigning of property or creating any right or interest in the property but even an arrangement, understanding or an action in concert having a bearing on the profit, income, losses or assets of the enterprises would fall in the term of international transaction. Since the TPO has considered

M/S NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

Section 92B r.w.s. 92F(v) it does not necessarily require transfer or assigning of property or creating any right or interest in the property but even an arrangement, understanding or an action in concert having a bearing on the profit, income, losses or assets of the enterprises would fall in the term of international transaction. Since the TPO has considered

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

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

Section 92B r.w.s. 92F(v) it does not necessarily require transfer or assigning of property or creating any right or interest in the property but even an arrangement, understanding or an action in concert having a bearing on the profit, income, losses or assets of the enterprises would fall in the term of international transaction. Since the TPO has considered

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

43,47,030 in respect of non-utilization of brought forward\nlosses.\nTransfer Pricing (“TP”) Grounds:\nRejection of transfer pricing documentation maintained with\nrespect to trading segment, payment of intra group services\nand trade receivables\n3.\nThe Ld. AO /TPO /DRP erred in not accepting the transfer pricing\nanalysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provision