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 INATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

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

920/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for this Assessment Year. Since the assessee had reported that it had entered into international transactions in the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arms length price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO vide order under section

M/S. INFINERA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 920(2) of the Act. while determining the arms' length price. Other than Transfer Pricing Related 5. That the order

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CA of the Act rejected the aforesaid contention by holding the turnover of a company in the IT-BPO industry does not have any impact on the margins earned. The assessee took the same contention before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing) 2 (2) (1)\nBangalore (the learned TPO) on 28th of January 2022 and the direction\nissued by The Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bangalore (the learned\ndispute resolution panel/the DRP) under Section 144C (5) of the act\nwherein the total income of the assessee as per return of income filed on\n30 November 2019 of ₹ 7,901,553,920

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KEANE INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

price without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent under the proviso to section 92C of the Act; 14.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not expunging the remarks of the Assessing Officer holding that deduction under section 10A of the Act should not be eligible for recruitment fees as such remarks were made without verifying

M/S CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA LLP ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 920 of C. Grounds of appeal relating to transfer pricing matters specific to software development services segment 17. The learned

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 Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee. The TPO passed order dated 26.10.2017 u/s 92CA of the I.T.Act, determining the TP adjustment at Rs.1004,25,07,785. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the I.T.Act, wherein

M/S LAM RESEARCH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price without giving the benefit of +/- 5 percent under the proviso to section 920 of the Act. General Grounds 11. The learned AG has erred in levying interest of Rs.68,60,778 under section 234B of the Act and Rs. 2,45,722 under section 2340 of the Act; 12. The learned AG has erred, in law and in facts

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

transfer pricing documentation requirements. 22. The learned TPO I AG I CIT(A) have erred, in law and in facts, by accepting/rejecting certain companies based on unreasonable comparable criteria. 22.1 Appellant's contention for rejection of comparable companies selected by learned TRO lAO / CIT(A) The Appellant submits that the companies provided below should be rejected on following grounds: Page

ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

section 92CA by the Ld.AO, the proposed transfer pricing adjustment is the addition proposed in the draft assessment order. 2.9 Aggrieved by the Draft assessment order, the assessee raised objection before the DRP. The directions by the DRP are as follows: (i) The DRP directed recomputation of margin of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Cybage

M/S. TESCO HINDUSTAN SERVICE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

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

section 92 of the Act. Be that as it may, the learned Departmental Representative could not demonstrate the fact that such reimbursement of expenses was without any markup. As the so called comparable case of Datamatics Financial Services Limited was included by the TPO in the final list of comparables, in our considered opinion, the same is liable

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

920/-. In the return, he declared income from Capital gains on transfer of land to the tune of Rs.1,95,75,979/-. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s.143(3) was concluded on 21.7.2016 declining to accept the capital gains declared by the assessee and determined the same at Rs.8

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

Transfer Pricing Documentation maintained by the Appellant. 4. In connection with the management and marketing support services fees the Learned AO and the Learned DRP erred in: 4.1. concluding that no economic value was derived and that no tangible and substantial commercial benefit was derived by the Appellant; 4.2. concluding that no supporting evidence were furnished to justify the management

M/S.ASM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.66/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Asm Technologies Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.80/2, Lusanne Court, Circle – 1(1)(2), Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aabca 4362 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

section 92 of the Act, the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of international transaction had to be determined. The assesse filed a Transfer Pricing study in support of its claim that the transactions with AE were at arm’s length. A copy of the transfer pricing analysis by the assessee is at pages 109 to 159 of the assessee

ALTRAN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

transfer pricing (`TP') documentation maintained by the Appellant in relation to the international transaction of provision of engineering consulting/ design services and by not accepting the economic analysis based on the comparable uncontrolled price (`CUP') method undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules. 5. Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transferred its Product Engineering Services business to L&T Technology Services Ltd. and wound up its subsidiary GDA Technologies Inc. Detailed submissions are placed at pages 50-59 and 437-451 of the paperbook. It is submitted that this company is consistently excluded from the final list of comparables in cases of assessee’s placed similar to the Appellant. Reliance

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

price, cannot be treated as adventure in the nature of trade or business. It is the submission of assessee that there is nothing on record to show that the land when acquired was with an intention to sell it by plotting. 10.1 Reliance was placed on various decisions, where it was held that purchase of land once upon a time