M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

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

92B clearly brings out that computation of income at ALP is permissible only in respect of international transaction, which, in turn, means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises. Similar position has been reiterated in the machinery provision contained in section 92C dealing with the manner of computation of ALP. Sub-section (1) of section 92C stipulates that

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

transfer pricing provisions cannot be used to re-compute profits from domestic transactions. Even where separate segmental margins for AE and non-AE IT(TP)A No.1789/Bang/2024 Page 26 of 38 transactions are not available, the adjustment must be reasonably apportioned to the AE transactions on a proportionate basis. 30.4 In the present case, the TPO has applied the adjustment

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

transfer pricing adjustment to the value of international transaction; 16. without prejudice to above, erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Assessee vis-à-vis the comparables. Adjustment of INR 35,67,86,587 towards selling, marketing and distribution expense incurred by the Appellant (treated as AMP expenditure) 17. erred

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for above terms

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing (“TP”) adjustment of INR 4,27,47,621 to the returned income of the Appellant and in holding that the international transactions undertaken by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (“AEs”) in the manufacturing segment were not at arm’s length. Rejection of Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method adopted as the most appropriate method by the Appellant

M/S. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

92B clearly brings out that computation of income at ALP is permissible only in respect of international transaction, which, in turn, means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises. Similar position has been reiterated in the machinery provision contained in section 92C dealing with the manner of computation of ALP. Sub- section (1) of section 92C stipulates that

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 92B of the Act, which . IT(TP)A No.1539/Bang/2024 Page 14 of 37 explicitly includes such deferred payments under the ambit of transfer pricing

PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

transfer pricing officer held that\nits entire revenue is from software sales in this company is functionally like the\ntaxpayer.\nThe learned dispute resolution panel also held that the revenue from sale of\nsoftware is Rs. 40.73 crores against total revenue of Rs. 42.58 crores which is\nmore than 95% of the total revenue which consist of other income

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

transfer price of the software development services amounting to INR 24,41,14,101/-. While doing so, the Ld. DRP/ Learned AO/ Learned TPO erred in: 2.1. Rejecting the value of international transaction of provision of software development services as recorded in the books of account, as the arm's length price; 2.2. Rejecting the TP documentation maintained

AB INBEV GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

transfer pricing IT(IT)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 17 adjustment is warranted. He stated that Finance Act, 2012 inserted Explanation to Section 92B

MAVENIR SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 453/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mavenir Systems Pvt. Ltd., Building Beach E1 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Manyata Embassy Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Hebbal Kr Circle – 4 (1)(1), Puram Section, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaecm9663N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.04.2022 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.Ar Has Relied On The Specific Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Which Are As Under:

transfer pricing adjustment is warranted. He stated that Finance Act, 2012 inserted Explanation to Section 92B, with retrospective effect from

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

transfer pricing documentation report maintained, for the determination of the Arm's Length Price [ALP] in connection with the impugned international transaction of software development/IT support services and holding that the Appellant's international transaction is not at arm's length. b) The TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting the benchmarking analysis of Intra group services such

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer pricing adjustment relating to notional interest on trade receivables: 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the AO / DRP / TPO have erred in making notional adjustment of INR 1,23,961 alleging that the outstanding trade receivable is a separate international transaction within the meaning of section 92B

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

transfer pricing additions and no new facts needs to be investigated for adjudicating the same.\nPage 8 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\nConsidering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant. 14. The lower authorities have erred in: (i) Adopting a flawed process in issuing notices u/s 133(6) and relying on the information collected without providing the Appellant the complete information or providing an opportunity to cross examine; (ii) Adopting inappropriate filters like one sided turnover filter, persistent loss making, 15% RPT filter

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing analysis submitted by the Appellant. 14. The lower authorities have erred in: (i) Adopting a flawed process in issuing notices u/s 133(6) and relying on the information collected without providing the Appellant the complete information or providing an opportunity to cross examine; (ii) Adopting inappropriate filters like one sided turnover filter, persistent loss making, 15% RPT filter

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

transfer pricing (‘TP’) documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence; 6.2. Rejecting the filters selected by the Appellant as captured in the TP documentation and adopting certain addition filters which are not in accordance with the jurisprudence laid down by various appellate forums; 6.3. Application of related party transaction

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

92B(1) read with Expln. (c) to section 92F and Rule 10B(2)(c), and applying the doctrine of “substance over form”, the TPO treated the delay in realisation of AEs invoices as a financing arrangement requiring separate benchmarking under TP provision. The assessee’s plea that entity-level TNMM margins subsume the impact of receivables was rejected

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 92B of the Act, which explicitly includes such deferred payments under the ambit of transfer pricing provisions, thereby warranting