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

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

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

transfer pricing) – 2 (2) (1) (the learned TPO) and the direction issued by The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Bangalore (the DRP) under section 144C (5) of the act wherein the returned income filed by the assessee on 31st of March 2021 declaring total income of ₹ 9

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.QUINTILES RESEARCH INDIA PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass the order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before the said date. [Clauses 25,39 and 40]" (emphasis supplied) 4. Two points clearly stand out from the above excerpt showing the legislative intent for the proposed amendment: First is that the TPO shall determine the Arm's Length Price at least 2 months

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\nanalysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provision\nof the Act read with Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and holding\nthat the Appellant's impugned international transactions pertaining to\ntrading segment, payment of intra group services and trade receivables\nare not at arm's length.\nAdjustment on account of trading segment\n4.\nThe

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

transfer pricing order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

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

transfer pricing order dated 29.01.2021 under section 92CA of the Act and concluded that the international transactions of the assessee were at arm’s length and no adjustment was warranted. As per Assessment Order: 3.3 The learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 22.04.2021 and made the following disallowances / additions to the returned income of the assessee: Particulars Amount

QUINTILES RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the\ndepartmental appeal is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer did not pass\nthe order under sub- section (3) of section 92CA before\nthe said date. [Clauses 25,39 and 40]\" (emphasis\nsupplied)\n\n4. Two points clearly stand out from the above excerpt showing\nthe legislative intent for the proposed amendment:\n\nFirst is that the TPO shall determine the Arm's Length Price at\nleast

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

9 of 18 assessees to maintain proper documentation. However, extending the transfer pricing requirements to all domestic transactions will lead to increase in compliance burden on all assessees which may not be desirable. Therefore, the transfer pricing regulations need to be extended to the transactions entered into by domestic related parties or by an undertaking with other undertakings

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

9 of 18 assessees to maintain proper documentation. However, extending the transfer pricing requirements to all domestic transactions will lead to increase in compliance burden on all assessees which may not be desirable. Therefore, the transfer pricing regulations need to be extended to the transactions entered into by domestic related parties or by an undertaking with other undertakings

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

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

9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 10B deals with determination of Arm’s Length Price under Section 92C of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee had calculated the rate of interest at 7.50% and 8.49%. However, the Assessing Officer has scaled down the same

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

transfer pricing adjustments were examined but it was found that the assessee has incurred the AMP Page 3 of 29 expenses for the benefits of its AE amounting to ₹ 769,019,660/–. The arm's-length margin on that was considered at 19.97% and therefore it was found that arm's-length price of the international transaction

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

9) of Section 10B. In the matter of GENERAL FINANCE CO. vs. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of Section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

9 of the Act and also under the provisions of DTAA. The AO in the case of GIPL (Payer) passed orders under Sections 201 & 201(1A) of the Act in respect of payments made to the assessee to the tune of Rs.42,51,53,437/-. 3. Based on the orders passed under Section

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

priced on a time and material basis are\nrecognized when services are rendered and related costs are incurred.\nRevenues from time bound fixed price contracts, are recognized over the\nlife of the contract using the proportionate of completion method, with\ncontract costs determining the degree of completion. Foreseeable losses\non such contracts are recognized when probable.\nRevenues from maintenance contracts

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

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.” The provisions of sub.sec (9