M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

80A would clearly signify that deduction has to be of gross profits and gains that is before computing the income as a specified in section 30 to 43D. Thereafter honourable court held that the judgement of Motilal pesticides is erroneous in as much as the language of 80 M and 80H are materially different and hence the same was overruled

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

80A would clearly signify that deduction has to be of gross profits and gains that is before computing the income as a specified in section 30 to 43D. Thereafter honourable court held that the judgement of Motilal pesticides is erroneous in as much as the language of 80 M and 80H are materially different and hence the same Page

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 30 of 85 (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv)any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 28 of 84 (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter

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

80A; IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 33 of 110 (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter

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

transfer pricing regulations (including procedural and penalty provisions) to transactions between related resident parties for the purposes of computation of income, disallowance of expenses etc. as required under provisions of sections 40A, 80-IA, 10AA, 80A

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

transfer pricing regulations (including procedural and penalty provisions) to transactions between related resident parties for the purposes of computation of income, disallowance of expenses etc. as required under provisions of sections 40A, 80-IA, 10AA, 80A

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

transfer pricing, a vital factor in determining the arm's length pricing of assessee's international transactions. We have also noted that the assessee had specifically taken up the issue of appreciation of this unique 50:50 business model before the DRP in the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. As regards the assessment year

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA, by the TPO for the ITES segments was erroneous. We have considered the submissions made by the assessee. This issue has been discussed by the TPO in para 2.8 of his order. In this case the TPO had asked the assessee to submit the details and nature of recovery of expenses received

ANSR GLOBAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing and answering such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LAB INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

transfer pricing issue. We direct the TPO to compute the ALP of the international transaction in accordance with the directions given in this order after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. IT(TP)A Nos.623, 566/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 25 13. As far as corporate tax grounds are concerned, Grd.No.6 to 6.4 is with regard to deduction u/s.80JJA

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 623/Bang/2016 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., 2011-12 Income Tax, 138, Export Promotion Circle - 6(1)(1), Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 3649 P 566/Bang/2016 M/S. Sap Lab Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 2011-12 Bengaluru – 560 066. Income Tax, Pan : Aafcs 3649 P Circle - 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

transfer pricing issue. We direct the TPO to compute the ALP of the international transaction in accordance with the directions given in this order after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. IT(TP)A Nos.623, 566/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 25 13. As far as corporate tax grounds are concerned, Grd.No.6 to 6.4 is with regard to deduction u/s.80JJA

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub- section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

Transfer Pricing provisions, however, in due course of discussion and adjudication of this issue in a series of decisions of this Tribunal, commonly accepted tolerance range of 5% to 25% of the total revenue from RPT has been considered as reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, the availability of the comparables

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1006/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Sap Labs India P. Ltd, No.138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Appellant Pan : Aafcs3649P

Transfer pricing study, placed at page 432 of the Paper book has been pointed out in support. Considered in the aforesaid light, on the basis of the discussion in relation to KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (Seg), in the instant case also we find that the said concern is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables.” vi) Infosys Technologies

NEOGENETICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub- section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; IT(TP)A No.361/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 15 (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

transferred to new SEZ units were less than 20% of the total number of the employees, and therefore the condition stipulated in Circular 12 & 14 of 2014 dated 18/07/2014. This criteria has not been considered by the Ld.AO. 6.15. We have referred to the observations by the Ld.CIT(A) for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 wherein there

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

80A(4) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) opined that no further deduction under Section 80JJAA could be allowed for units whose profits were already claimed as exempt under Sections 10A or 10AA of the Act. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim for these units. 8.5 The ld. CIT(A) further disallowed the deduction under Section 80JJAA