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

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

price as per section 92C of the act, and an order is passed by the Ld.TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the act. The legislature vide amendment introduced vide Finance Act, 2007 expressly indicated the timeline within which the Ld.TPO is to pass an order u/s. 92CA(3). The timeline has been introduced by way of sub-section (3A) to section

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

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

3) Vs. GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.[ITA No.282 of 2013, dated 17/12/2020], the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under: IT(TP)A No.2525/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 “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

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

transfer pricing (“TP) order dated 17.10.2018 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 70 S No Particulars Amount (Rs) A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Brad promotion expenses paid to Force India

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

3,093,153,514, as\nagainst returned income of INR 1,675,425,240;\nTransfer pricing grounds\n2.\nLd. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of\nthe Hon'ble DRP, erred in making addition of INR 1,040,059,562 to\ntotal income of Appellant on pretext that price charged was lower\nthan arm's length price determined

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

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 of the assessee with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

92C(4) recognizes the commercial\nrealities that even when a transfer pricing adjustment is made, within the\nsub-section, the amount represented in the adjustment would not actually\nhave been received in India or would have actually gone out of the\ncountry. Therefore, it has been provided that no deduction u/s 10A or\n10AA or under Chapter VI-A shall

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 so determined. It is further provided that no deduction u/s 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VIA shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under sec. 92C(4). 39.16 As per provisions of sec.92(3), the transfer

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

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

3 of the said agreement is a consolidated one. Thus, the price for which shares of LTIAL were transferred was based on a single agreement and, therefore, to say that one part of that agreement would be an uncontrolled transaction, for comparing it with the M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. other part, would, in our opinion, be unacceptable. The agreement

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

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

3 of the said agreement is a consolidated one. Thus, the price for which shares of LTIAL were transferred was based on a single agreement and, therefore, to say that one part of that agreement would be an uncontrolled transaction, for comparing it with the M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. other part, would, in our opinion, be unacceptable. The agreement

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

In the result, the appeal by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

3). the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm's length price so determined. Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced

WEG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

price ('ALP') of the Appellant's manufacturing activity. Page 3 of 20 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in making adjustment towards manufacturing activity and in doing so, grossly erred in i) rejecting the TP documentation under section 92C(3) of the Act by contending

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

section (3) of 92C of the Act. 2.3 The Learned AO/ Learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting comparability analysis carried in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis by introducing various filters while determining the Arm's Length Price ("ALP"). 2.4 The Learned AO/ Learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the financial

EBIX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) was passed.\n13. Accordingly, the draft assessment order under section 144C\n(1) was passed on 26/12/2023 proposing and variation of the\nabove amount in the transfer pricing adjustment. Further it\nwas found that the depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,845,615/-\nhas been claimed for which the details were asked. As no\ninformation was forthcoming, the learned assessing officer

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: 3

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

3). the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm's length price so determined. Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter Vl-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

3). the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm's length price so determined. Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter Vl-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced