M/S.SOFTTEK INDIA PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer. ** ** ** (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.1 & original ground no. 2.1) 2.2 Disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the profit level indicators ("PLI") of the comparable companies; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.2 & original ground

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.1 & original ground no. 2.1) 2.2 Disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the profit level indicators ("PLI") of the comparable companies; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.2 & original ground

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of his order under Section 92CA of the Act, the TPO has accepted IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 33 of 71 that the assessee has its own range of products and the AEs only choose from the standard products which are manufactured by the assessee for the Indian Market. In our view

M/S.FILTREX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

3). Set-off is also recognized by international tax experts and commentaries. (x) Segregation of bundled transactions shall be done only if exceptions laid down in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del) are justified. Re-categorisation and segregation of transactions are different exercises; former would require separate comparables and functional analysis. (xi) Economic ownership

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

3). Set-off is also recognized by international tax experts and commentaries. (x) Segregation of bundled transactions shall be done only if exceptions laid down in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del) are justified. Re-categorisation and segregation of transactions are different exercises; former would require separate comparables and functional analysis. (xi) Economic ownership

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

3). Set-off is also recognized by international tax experts and commentaries. (x) Segregation of bundled transactions shall be done only if exceptions laid down in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del) are justified. Re-categorisation and segregation of transactions are different exercises; former would require separate comparables and functional analysis. (xi) Economic ownership

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

3). Set-off is also recognized by international tax experts and commentaries. (x) Segregation of bundled transactions shall be done only if exceptions laid down in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del) are justified. Re-categorisation and segregation of transactions are different exercises; former would require separate comparables and functional analysis. (xi) Economic ownership

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

transfer prices to align them with arm's length prices determined under these rules and consequent adjustment made to the total income for tax purposes." (emphasis supplied) As may be seen from the said sub-rule that any adjustment determined (by an assessee or by the AO) under these rules shall be made to the total income of an assessee

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of his order under Section 92CA of the Act, the TPO has accepted that the assessee has its own range of products and the AEs only choose from the standard products which are manufactured by the assessee for the Indian Market. In our view, the TPO's understanding of a contract manufacturer will make every manufacturer of goods

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 study report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 [‘the Rules’] without considering the functional and risk profile of the Company. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the actions of the AO/ TPO. b) The AO/ TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

3 of his order under Section 92CA of the Act, the TPO has accepted that the assessee has its own range of products and the AEs only choose from the standard products which are manufactured by the assessee for the Indian Market. In our view, the TPO's understanding of a contract manufacturer will make every manufacturer of goods

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

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

3 of his order under Section 92CA of the Act, the TPO has accepted that the assessee has its own range of products and the AEs only choose from the standard products which are manufactured by the assessee for the Indian Market. In our view, the TPO's understanding of a contract manufacturer will make every manufacturer of goods

AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

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

3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him:” 18. Rule 10B of the IT Rules, 1962 prescribes rules for Determination of arm’s length

M/S. AIRBUS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Transfer Pricing (‘TP’) documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence. 4.3. Rejecting the benchmarking/ comparability analysis carried out by the Appellant in the TP documentation and in conducting a fresh comparability analysis for the software engineering and design services based on the application of additional filters in determining