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

1) of the Act was made, for the computation of Arm’s length price in relation to international transactions. 5.2 The TPO in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 11/05/2023 proposed upward adjustment of Rs. 35,58,85,941/- . IT(TP)A No.1587/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 19 and Rs. 11,21,05,193/- towards software

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

1) of the Act and referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of the arm's length price in relation to the international transactions undertaken by MSIL with its associated enterprise, SMC. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order making an adjustment of Rs. 154.12 crores towards the advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses imputing a notional

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.

1) of the Act while computing the total income. PART II – TRANSFER PRICING (“TP”) GROUNDS: General Ground: erred in law and on facts, in making Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 6,19,06,837 pertaining to purchase of raw materials and sale of finished goods to AE under Manufacturing segment and Transfer Pricing adjustment

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

KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1) of section 92C stipulates that:- "The arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods ............. ". 47. It is the plea of the assessee that addition by way of transfer pricing adjustment is mandated only in respect of transactions between two or more AEs. The profit from comparable transactions

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

1) of the Income-tax Act mandates computation of income arising from international transactions having regard to the arm’s length price. Thus, the statutory framework itself limits the scope of transfer pricing adjustments only to transactions entered with associated enterprises. Domestic transactions, even if they form part of the same segment, are outside the purview of transfer pricing provisions

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

1) of the Act. 2.2 Rejection of aggregation of transaction approach followed by the Appellant a) The learned TPO erred, in law and in fact, by rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant and the comparable identified by the Appellant in its transfer pricing documentation report maintained, for the determination of the Arm's Length Price [ALP] in connection

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(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. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

1. The impugned final assessment order dated 27.01.2022 was not communicated in the manner prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the rules made thereunder, and therefore the proceedings are null and void. Page 2 IT(TP)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Transfer Pricing Grounds 2. The Assessing Officer (`A0')/Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel

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

1), Bangalore (“TPO”) and the Honourable DRP-1, Bengaluru (“DRP”) (“AO”, “TPO” and DRP collectively referred as “lower authorities” for brevity) are bad in law and liable to be quashed. GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING – LEGAL ISSUES 2. The learned AO has erred in making a reference for the determination of the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1), Bangalore (“TPO”) and the Honourable DRP-1, Bengaluru (“DRP”) (“AO”, “TPO” and DRP collectively referred as “lower authorities” for brevity) are bad in law and liable to be quashed. GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING – LEGAL ISSUES 2. The learned AO has erred in making a reference for the determination of the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions

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

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 adjustment made of INR 84,04,860 under section 10AA of the Act. Part II - Corporate tax adjustments: 5. Grounds against addition on account of unbilled revenue amounting to INR 81,26,36,474 5.1 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making addition

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

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, on account of interest income short charged or uncharged. It was argued that insertion of Explanation with retrospective effect covers assessment year under consideration and hence under/non- payment of interest by AEs on debt arising during course of business becomes international transactions, calling for computing its ALP. He referred to decision of Delhi Tribunal in Ameriprise (supra

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

1). Ground No. 2: Transfer Pricing (`TP') adjustment in relation to provision on software development services 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned DRP/ Learned AO/ Learned TPO erred in making TP adjustment with respect to the transfer price of the software development services amounting to INR 24,41,14,101/-. While doing

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

1 to Rs. 200 crores only should be taken into consideration for\nthe purpose of making TP study.\"\nThe appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal\nin the case of Genisys (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2011] 64 DTR 225 has been\nconsidered by this Court in ITA No.17/2012 and the same has been dismissed

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

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