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

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

2(24) of the Act, it noted that the definition of "income" includes "dividend" and hence, it held that imposition of additional tax on dividend was indeed, tax on income, and clearly covered by Entry 82 of List 1 to Seventh Schedule of the Constitution ("Entry 82"). e. While it is true that the question raised before

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD) , CIRCLE -3,, PUNE vs. M/S. BOBST INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacb7295F C.O. No.42/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.445/Pun/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacb7295F बनाम / V/S. Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Assessee By : Shri R. G. Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 17.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Filed The Cross Objection.

section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in absence of issuance of draft assessment order to the Assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble CIT(A) has: 2. erred in not appreciating the fact that the ld. TPO has modified the unadjusted operating margin of one of the comparable companies viz. International

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

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Cummins India Limited. A. Transfer Pricing Adjustment: 1.1 The learned DCIT pursuant to the directions of the learned DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in making an adjustment amounting

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In respect of deduction u/s 10A/10AA in respect

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In respect of deduction u/s 10A/10AA in respect

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,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 Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adient India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, S No.235 & 245, Circle-1(1), Pune Hinjewadi, Tal-Mulshi, Pune - 411057 Pan : Aaact6342D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue By S/Shri Kalika Singh & Madhavan A.M. Krishnan Date Of Hearing 27-05-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31-05-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27-10-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‗The Act‘) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Transfer Pricing Addition Of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That The Assessee Was Earlier A 50:50 Joint

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against transfer pricing addition of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee was earlier a 50:50 joint venture between Johnson

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

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

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

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal “Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon„ble DRP erred in directing the Ld. AO to tax the receipt Rs.9

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 specifically bars the DRP to set-aside any proposed variation or issue as well as any direction for further enquiry, which means the DRP itself should decide the issue after causing

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

144C order dated 15.12.2014 directed the AO to frame the assessment order as per the directions contained therein. Pursuant to the directions of DRP, AO passed order u/s 144(C) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.01.2015 determining the total taxable income at Rs.47,40,81,004/-. Thereafter, AO passed order u/s 154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

144C order dated 15.12.2014 directed the AO to frame the assessment order as per the directions contained therein. Pursuant to the directions of DRP, AO passed order u/s 144(C) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.01.2015 determining the total taxable income at Rs.47,40,81,004/-. Thereafter, AO passed order u/s 154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total