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

Price received Rs.4,91,92,995/- Shortfall being adjustment under Rs.28,87,079/- section 92CA The difference of Rs.28,87,079/- as determined above is the transfer

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

Price received Rs.4,91,92,995/- Shortfall being adjustment under Rs.28,87,079/- section 92CA The difference of Rs.28,87,079/- as determined above is the transfer

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

Price received Rs.4,91,92,995/- Shortfall being adjustment under Rs.28,87,079/- section 92CA The difference of Rs.28,87,079/- as determined above is the transfer

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. 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

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 IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 47 ("AE") M/S/Atmecs Inc., USA (Atmecs US). In terms of Sec.92B

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

price by the TPO and the adjustment made: Arm’s Length Mean Mark-up 29.40% Operating Cost Rs.129,89,30,000/- Arm’s Length Price @129.40% of cost Rs.168,08,20,000/- Price Received Rs.1,38,06,40,000/- Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.30,01,80,000/- 79. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

Section 92B(2) by the Finance Act, 2014 was inserted only by way of abundant caution. It is made with a view to clarify the position that by entering into series of transactions with third parties who are not associated enterprises or non- residents, one cannot claim that the Transfer Pricing regulations were not applicable, if in reality

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

transfer pricing addition could have been made accordingly. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Honourable DRP and Learned TPO have failed to appreciate that book debt cannot regarded as an international transaction even within the meaning of newly inserted Explanation (i)(c) to section 92B of IT Act. 4. The Honourable DRP and Learned TPO have failed to appreciate

RANDOX LABORATORIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

transfer pricing addition could have been made accordingly. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Honourable DRP and Learned TPO have failed to appreciate that book debt cannot regarded as an international transaction even within the meaning of newly inserted Explanation (i)(c) to section 92B of IT Act. 4. The Honourable DRP and Learned TPO have failed to appreciate

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

transfer pricing purposes. Guidance on comparability adjustments is found in paragraphs 3.47-3.54 and in the Annexure to Chapter III of the TPG. A revised version of this guidance was approved by the Council of the OECD on 22 July 2010. The Tribunal referred to Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid OECD guidelines, wherein the need for working capital

M/S. RANDOX LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

Section 92A, the persons said to be unrelated if they are not associated or deemed to be associated enterprise. Uncontrolled Conditions; are that conditions which are not controlled or suppressed or moulded for achievement of a predetermined results. 5. The AO referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) the question of determination of ALP of the aforesaid transaction of purchase

SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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

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

section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. 10. While going through the details, the Ld.AO found that assessee has entered into international transaction that exceeded Rs.15 crores, and accordingly, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing

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

91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

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

91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

CITRIX R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

Transfer Pricing - 12. That the Learned DRP erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO in disallowing deduction claimed under section 35AC and 8oG of the Act amounting to INR 7,50,00o. 13. That the Learned AO & Learned DRP failed to appreciate the fact that no restriction is imposed on claiming deduction under section 35AC

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

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

Section 144C(5) of the Act. The TPO revised the TP Addition in respect of ECB from INR.75,39,13,371 to INR.62,88,86,271/- vide order dated 22/01/2024. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed final Assessment Order, dated 24/10/2024, making Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.62,88,86,271/- in respect of interest on ECB. 6. Being /aggrieved, the Assessee

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing. In the case on hand, the assessee has not brought on record any fact to show that the current year data are not reflecting the correct uncontrolled comparable price. Therefore, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 6.1 Ground No.4 is regarding the adjustment for difference in accounting policies, depreciation adjustment, etc. 6.2 At the time

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing risk parameter. On the other hand, the case was selected for limited scrutiny one of the reasons being mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s. 40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR. From a reading of these reasons, we are of the view that no prudent business person properly instructed in law would have inferred