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

9. For that the Hon'ble DRP erred in law as well as on facts, in directing the TPO to make an estimated 1% adjustment on account of Risk when Transfer pricing regulations in India is against any assumption in respect to any adjustment and further when there is also no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into quantitative

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 is highly illegal, improper and unjust and also in the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (3) The learned respondent seriously erred in not noticing the fact that in view of the pendency of the various legal litigation on the properties, the appellant

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 of the offshore services was taxable in India under the Act as well as the Convention. (iii) That, however, in view of section 115A(1)(b)(B) of the Act and article 12(2) of the Convention, tax was payable at the fixed rate of 20 per cent. of the gross amount of fees for technical services

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which reads as under: “(i) Any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred in clause (b) of said section 2 of section 40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA

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

Transfer Pricing Related 7. That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the provision for warranty as an unascertained liability, and making an addition of Rs 1,120,000 to total income. 8. (a) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in stating that the Company was not in possession of Interest Free Funds which could be used to purchase fixed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell out as to what are the mandatory conditions that

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell out as to what are the mandatory conditions that

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell out as to what are the mandatory conditions that

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, has not complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in the said section and has not afforded opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making a reference to the TPO. Though the learned Counsel for the assessee did not spell out as to what are the mandatory conditions that

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

9 of 47 varying set of comparable cases. However, insofar as calculation of profit A' is concerned, the same has to necessarily result in the hands of the assessee-enterprise (Indian entity) only from the transaction between two or more associated enterprises, as it is the mandate of section 92 read with section 92B in juxtaposition to rule

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) 3.1 The power to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 92C. However, Section 92CA provides that where the Assessing Officer (AO) considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of ALP in relation

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:

9 of 38 left the question whether AMP expenses gives raise to international transaction or not open with the following observations: “In this case, the High Court has remitted the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer ("the TPO" for short) with liberty to issue fresh show- cause notice. The High Court has further directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to decide

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:

9 of 38 left the question whether AMP expenses gives raise to international transaction or not open with the following observations: “In this case, the High Court has remitted the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer ("the TPO" for short) with liberty to issue fresh show- cause notice. The High Court has further directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to decide

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, consequently, the final assessment order dated 29 January, 2015 is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Act, thus making the final assessment order illegal, bad in law, null and void