ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

setting up a lower turnover filter, there should also be an upper turnover filter on revenues for the better comparability analysis. He further referred to the OECD transfer pricing guidelines 2017, the ICAI transfer pricing guidance note, several judicial precedents as well the decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2016–17 in IT(TP)A No.187/Bangalore/2021 dated

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing method. In general, closely comparable products/services are required if the comparable uncontrolled price ('CUP') method is used for arms' length pricing; the resale price, cost-plus methods generally require a lesser degree of products or services comparability and may be appropriate if functional comparables are available. The TNMM requires only broad functional and product/services comparability. In many instances

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

losses is in accordance with the filters consistently applied in the transfer pricing analysis. Sicame India Connectors Pvt. Ltd (TPO’s comparable, assessee seeking exclusion) 24.13 The captioned company selected by the TPO in the comparable set

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

setting off the payables with receivables. 2.16 Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO and Learned TPO grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR with respect to interest on delayed receivables u/s 92CA of the Act thereby: a. Erred in not considering that receivables cannot be considered as an international transaction and it does not fall within

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

transfer pricing study of the Assessee observing,\ninter alia, (a) use of inappropriate filters (b) non-application of\nemployee cost filter (c) non application of 'Income from core\nservices >75% of sales' as a filter. Therefore, TPO concluded that\ndue to rejection of filters, if some or all uncontrolled comparables\nare rejected, the same would result in consequent rejection

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing for Specified Domestic Transaction vide Finance Act, 2017. Company is having only specified domestic transactions under section 92BA read with 40A(2)(b). 6. The Learned AO and TPO has erred in determining Arm’s Length Price/ Fair Market Value of the transactions with related parties by applying comparable margins on the whole of Company’s turnover

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing for Specified Domestic Transaction vide Finance Act, 2017. Company is having only specified domestic transactions under section 92BA read with 40A(2)(b). 6. The Learned AO and TPO has erred in determining Arm’s Length Price/ Fair Market Value of the transactions with related parties by applying comparable margins on the whole of Company’s turnover

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

loss of ₹72,545,473. The Income Tax\nDepartment selected the return for scrutiny. This scrutiny was\nconducted to verify the assessee's expenditure and to review\ntransactions with related parties regarding the lending and\nborrowing of money. A notice under section 143(2) was\nserved to the assessee on 28 June 2022.\n7. The assessee entered an international transaction

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

transfer pricing exercise is to determine the appropriate arm's length price. Such an adjustment definitely warrants at times the tinkering of PLI in the exercise of determination of arm's length price. If any peculiar abnormality or extraordinary event which has arisen specific in the case of the 'tested party' then same needs to be analysed, firstly, by comparing

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

set of 12 comparable were retained whose 65th\npercentile margin was 13.30% 35th percentile margin was 6.25% and\nmedian margin was 11.58% therefore on that basis the taxpayers profit\nlevel indicator was computed at 4.14% and computed the total taxpayers\noperating cost of ₹ 3,6020,000,000 at arm's-length price of\n332,22,930,800 and computed

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

loss of Rs.3,71,27,462/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions, a reference was made to the transfer pricing officer for determination of arm’s length price with respect to the international transactions. The TPO made an adjustment of Rs.7

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with

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

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing issues in revenue’s appeals become infructuous. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 10 of 126 4. Issue 2: Rejection of books of accounts: Brief facts of this issue are as under: 4.1 The assessee entered into an agreement with