DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2098/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 144C(1) of the Act, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections and has raised the issue against the rate to be applied on the income offered to tax by the assessee. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is foreign company

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.338/Pun/2021 & 236/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 144C, it is vivid that - the opportunity of hearing to the assessee is required to be given by the DRP before deciding on the objections raised before it; the direction is given for the guidance of the AO; and after the receipt of the direction, the AO has to straight away pass the final assessment order without providing

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.338/Pun/2021 & 236/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 144C, it is vivid that - the opportunity of hearing to the assessee is required to be given by the DRP before deciding on the objections raised before it; the direction is given for the guidance of the AO; and after the receipt of the direction, the AO has to straight away pass the final assessment order without providing

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. 12. Non-consideration of adjustment for differences on account of functional and risk profile of comparable companies vis-a-vis the Appellant Erred in comparing full-fledged risk bearing entities with the Appellant's captive operations without making any risk adjustment for differences between the functional and risk profile of comparable

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26/02/2022 determining total income of Rs.455,25,53,250/- (Rs.722

LIEBHERR CMC TECH I P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

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

TDS, set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and de novo consideration. 6. The provisions of sub-section (8) of section 144C

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

144C(6)(C) of the Act. The grounds of appeal mentioned below are without prejudice to the above ground. Transfer Pricing related grounds Ground No. 2: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in making a TP 2 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Skoda Auto A.S. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel was right in directing AO to delete proposed disallowance of claim of assessee of Rs.1,90,48,294/- under section

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

144C(13) read\nwith section 1448 of the Act, by the learned additional/ Joint/\nDeputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, National Faceless\nAssessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"Assessing\nOfficer /\"AO\") in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble\nDispute Resolution Panel - 3, Mumbai [\"hereinafter referred to as\n\"DRP\"] on the following grounds, which are independent

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in pursuance of the directions dated 25 January 2022(received on 25 January 2022) issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other: On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

M/S. AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PRIAVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.610/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 8. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid upward adjustment of ₹ 1.32 crores (approx.). 9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had prepared segmental accounts for different activities it had undertaken and benchmarked the international transactions embedded in the segment. Inviting our attention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FOSECO INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

144C(3) of the Act and the total income was determined of Rs.48,54,39,240/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.08.07.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)- 13/DCIT, Cir-1(2)/544/2015-16) granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal

M/S. SANDVIK ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE -10, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.172 & 3080/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Both the appeals relating to same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.172 & 3080/PUN/2017 2 3. The assessee in ITA No.172/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2012-13 has raised the following

SANDVIK ASIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.172 & 3080/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Both the appeals relating to same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.172 & 3080/PUN/2017 2 3. The assessee in ITA No.172/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2012-13 has raised the following

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

144C(8) of the Act, thereby, exceeding its jurisdiction and rendering the proceedings void and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. Without prejudice to the above, that on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in arbitrarily selecting comparable companies, disregarding the fact that the comparable chosen were functionally not comparable. Disallowance