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

45. We have heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. We notice the issue relating to allowability of expenditure incurred on IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 40 of 50 sponsorship of sports event was considered by the Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Samudra Developers Pvt Ltd (ITA 5974/Mum/2013 dated

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

45. We have heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. We notice the issue relating to allowability of expenditure incurred on IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 40 of 50 sponsorship of sports event was considered by the Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Samudra Developers Pvt Ltd (ITA 5974/Mum/2013 dated

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

45,652 Chinese entity. Assessee stated\nthat this transaction is closely linked to the main international\ntransaction of payment of IT support charges to its associated\nenterprises. Though assessee stated that it has adopted Other\nMethod as the Most Appropriate method and submitted that the\nsame is at arm's length price. The assessee in para 4.5.3 of the\nTPSR

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

transfer pricing ("TP matter) 3. The learned TPO/ AO erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting comparable companies forming part of the TP study report as well as certain additional comparable companies as they do not appear in TPO's search matrix. 4. The learned TPO/ AO erred in law and in facts by not accepting the economic analysis

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

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority;\n(e) records relating to the draft order;\n(f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and\n(g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it.\n(7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 92CA(3) of the Act. The TPO proposed Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.1,45,50,79,730/- and INR.1

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

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

45 and s. 2(47)(v)\nof IT Act. It is pertinent to clarify that one must not mistake to\nidentify the issue of capital gain with the term \"transfer\" as defined\nin s. 54 of Transfer of Property act. At the cost of elaboration, we\nmay like to add that in the past there was a long line

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer pricing. In holding so, the learned DRP referred various case laws. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned DRP/AO/TPO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us argued that the TPO erred in benchmarking the outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and proposing an adjustment

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 passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92-CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.? 17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have

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

3,093,153,514, as\nagainst returned income of INR 1,675,425,240;\nTransfer pricing grounds\n2.\nLd. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of\nthe Hon'ble DRP, erred in making addition of INR 1,040,059,562 to\ntotal income of Appellant on pretext that price charged was lower\nthan arm's length price determined

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

45. Section 92B defines the term "international transaction" to mean "a transaction between two or more associated enterprises …..” . 46. A conjoint reading of section 92 with section 92B clearly brings out that computation of income at ALP is permissible only in respect of international transaction, which, in turn, means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises. Similar position

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

sections after application of the ALP, in our view, is the Transfer pricing adjustment contemplated in sec.92 of the Act. 39.21 We have prepared certain illustrations in order to explain above points. They are given below:- There are two situations in which the profits of eligible business are inflated. They are (a) Over invoicing revenue (b) Under invoicing expenses

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

3 – 21, he submits that these are the grounds relating to the adjustment on account of arm's-length price of the AMP expenses. He submits that that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the coordinate benches in assessee's own case. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) was passed.\n13. Accordingly, the draft assessment order under section 144C\n(1) was passed on 26/12/2023 proposing and variation of the\nabove amount in the transfer pricing adjustment. Further it\nwas found that the depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,845,615/-\nhas been claimed for which the details were asked. As no\ninformation was forthcoming, the learned assessing officer

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

45. Section 92B defines the term "international transaction" to mean "a transaction between two or more associated enterprises …..” . 46. A conjoint reading of section 92 with section 92B clearly brings out that computation of income at ALP is permissible only in respect of international transaction, which, in turn, means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises. Similar position

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:-

3 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. was passed on 30.10.2017. In the final assessment order, the A.O. has made following additions / disallowance:- Additions / Disallowances Sl. Particulars Amount (Rs.) No. (i) Transfer Pricing Adjustments 435,47,59,369 (ii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for 4,18,320 short deduction of tax (iii) Disallowance of rebate

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

3) of Rule 10B. Taking into account all these aspects, we do not find any material difference so as to affect comparability. Hence, these pleas are rejected. 7.6 In view of the above, the pleas of assessee were rejected and selection of this company was upheld by the ld. DRP. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused