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

77,921 /- Arm’s Length Margin 55.44% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price @ 122.14% Rs.1,62,14,086/- of operating cost 17.7.Price Received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price The price charged by the taxpayer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length price as under: Arms Length Price @ 129.30% of Rs.1

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

77,921 /- Arm’s Length Margin 55.44% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price @ 122.14% Rs.1,62,14,086/- of operating cost 17.7.Price Received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price The price charged by the taxpayer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length price as under: Arms Length Price @ 129.30% of Rs.1

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

77,921 /- Arm’s Length Margin 55.44% of the Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price @ 122.14% Rs.1,62,14,086/- of operating cost 17.7.Price Received vis-à-vis the Arms Length Price The price charged by the taxpayer to its Associated Enterprises is compared to the Arms Length price as under: Arms Length Price @ 129.30% of Rs.1

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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:

77,592. In doing so, the Learned TPO erred in determining the non-routine AMP expenses by applying the bright line test, which is not one of the prescribed methods under section 92C of the Act and has been disallowed in various High Court Rulings. 3. The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in not accepting

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:

77,592. In doing so, the Learned TPO erred in determining the non-routine AMP expenses by applying the bright line test, which is not one of the prescribed methods under section 92C of the Act and has been disallowed in various High Court Rulings. 3. The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in not accepting

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

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

transfer pricing issue, with respect to trading segment\nadjustments, the ld. DRP confirmed the rejection of the tested party\nas foreign entity in absence of sufficient information regarding that\nentity, least complex, etc. Accordingly, it upheld the order of the\nld. AO. In this trading segment, the assessee objected to selection\nof comparable as Metal Toy India

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as 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

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

transfer pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 4,77,30,553/-. 3. The learned AO/learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not acknowledging the voluntary payment of true-up adjustment offered suo-moto for tax by the assessee. 4. The learned AO / learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant on invoking provisions

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

In the result, the grounds relating to T

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

77 taxmann.com 194 (3) ITO v. L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 24 taxmann.corn 192 (Born) (4) Mattel Toys India Pvt. Ltd., v. DOlT in ITA No.2476/Mum/2008. The Id. DR placed reliance upon the order of the AO and the DRP. 16. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the record, we find that undisputedly

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

77. The AO is directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction in the manufacturing segment as per the directions given in this order, after affording opportunity of being heard. Continental Automotive Components India Pvt.Ltd. Page 55 of 97 78. SWD SERVICES SEGMENT OF THE ASSESSE It is not in dispute that the transaction of rendering of SWD services

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

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

BARRACUDA NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) to (d)...... (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TP0") while filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

section 234B and 234C of the Act. Page 5 of 28 IT(TP)A No. 711/Bang/2017 That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 2. The assessee has raised additional ground vide application dated 18/12/2020 which