M/S. STEER ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

section 144C(5), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall issue the directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. In case the Assessee chooses not to filed objections before

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting of profits outside India. Hence, the interest free loan should be taken as a case of Zero interest and accordingly the impugned loan transactions should also be examined under arms’ length principles. 31. We notice that the decisions rendered by the Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Shilpa Shetty (supra

FIREEYE CYBERSECURITY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

801 Office equipments 44,773,000 Computer software 953,500 Total 285,155,291 Summary and Economic Characterization Based on the functional and risk analysis relating to IT services, ITeS and MSS rendered by FireEye India to its AEs, it can be characterized as captive service provider performing routine functions and bearing limited risk with respect to its international transactions

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37 of the I T Act. 16. The Learned AO erred in not giving TDS credit amounting to Rs.1,37,88,075/- and no reasons or explanations have been given for denying the credit. ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234A, B& C 17. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, B& C of the Act. Further prays that

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

section 92CA, was made to transfer pricing officer. Ld.TPO upon receipt of reference called upon assessee to file economic details regarding international transactions entered into by it with its AE. Ld.TPO observed that assessee was incorporated in India as wholly owned subsidiary of Telelogic AB, Sweden. It has been observed that assessee is engaged in rendering software development services

GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

Section 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) in relation to Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The assessee in engaged in the business of provision of Engineering Design Services (EDS services), to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing EDS Services and MSS were

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY GLOBAL SHARED SERVICES INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.1,50,87,408 for the software development services as under : 5.5.1 Final set of 8 comparables for ITES Segment. 5.5.2 After allowing working capital adjustment of 0.09%, the TPO worked out the proposed TP Adjustment of Rs.1,23,13,265 for the ITES Segment as under :- IT(TP)A No.1280/B/2014 No.1280/Bang/2014 8 6. Assessee

ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 92B of the Act, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] in order to determine the Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of the international transaction. The TPO vide order dated 24.1.2021 made an adjustment of Rs.38,26,58,668. The AO passed a draft assessment order incorporating the Transfer Pricing [TP] adjustment. The assessee raised objections

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

transfer pricing upward adjustment under SWD segment and no adjustment was made in under the ITeS segment. The other additions proposed on corporate tax issues were confirmed by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. It is submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature

AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CENTRE(I)P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 92CA of the Act dt.29.1.2013 proposing the following Transfer Pricing Adjustments : i) Software development services segment : Rs.5,90,21,801

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore in keeping with the OECD guidelines, endeavor should be made to bring in comparable companies for the purpose of broad comparison. Therefore the working capital adjustment as claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly.' 16. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the working capital adjustment

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing study by the Appellant or at the time of undertaking of assessment by the TPO. b) The AO/TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of comparable companies. 4 Non-allowance of appropriate adjustments to the comparable companies, by the AO/TPO a) The AO/TPO erred

RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES(INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalerambus Chip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Tower C & D, Ibc Knowledge Park, 4/1, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 ….Appellant Pan Aaccr 8522M Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. It(Tp)A No.1029/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) (By Revenue) Assessee By: S/Shri G.C. Srivastava & Umashankar, Advocates. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Section 92CA of Rs.3,76,57,899 and other additions of foreign exchange loss, and restricting the claim under Section 10A of the Act and Assessed the total income at Rs.3,94,85,126 and passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) Dt.9.3.2015. Subsequently, the final assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s

M/S TRILAR VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

transfer pricing officer for determining arms length price of international transaction as per section 92CA of the Act. Upon receipt of reference, Ld.TPO called upon assessee to file economic details of transaction in Form 3 CEB. Representative of assessee appeared before Ld.TPO and filed requisite details as called for. 3. The assessee for the financial year 2013-14 relevant

M/S LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. TP adjustment relating to manufacturing segment : 4. In the manufacturing segment, the tax payer applied internal CUP method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for import of parts for manufacture of personal computers. The relevant portion of the TP document is reproduced below:- "During the financial year 2013-14, Lenovo India has imported

M/S. INFINERA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

transfer pricing adjustments are dismissed as not pressed. 5. The next issue relates to disallowance of repairs & maintenance expenses to the tune of Rs.75,24,807/- treating it as capital in nature. The facts relating thereto are that the assessee had claimed repairs & maintenance expenses of Rs.3.68 crores. The A.O., in the draft assessment order, asked the assessee to furnish

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

section 143(3) of the Act, on 23.02.2018 assessing income at Rs.1,64,66,75,801/-. The additions made in the said Assessment Order was with regard to Transfer Pricing

ALTIMETRIK 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 George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

transfer pricing adjustment towards interest not realized from its AE on the debts arising during the course of business in line with our above observations." 44. We are of the view that the issue with regard to determination of ALP in respect of the international transaction of giving extended credit period for receivables should be directed to be examined afresh