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]

TP study report and our letter dated 02 July 2021. we confirm that PSL as well as its branches are engaged in provision of software 21 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] development and related services. The comparable companies are also engaged in the similar functional profile of provision of services. 2.2.2. Your goodselfis referring to companies involved in provision of product

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

TDS credits/certificates etc after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer shall examine the issue, verify the claims and allow the tax credit as per law. Accordingly, ground no.10 is allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds no.11 to 20 relate to the TP adjustments. Briefly stated 15. the relevant facts of this

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

TDS credits/certificates etc after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer shall examine the issue, verify the claims and allow the tax credit as per law. Accordingly, ground no.10 is allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds no.11 to 20 relate to the TP adjustments. Briefly stated 15. the relevant facts of this

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

TDS credits/certificates etc after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer shall examine the issue, verify the claims and allow the tax credit as per law. Accordingly, ground no.10 is allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds no.11 to 20 relate to the TP adjustments. Briefly stated 15. the relevant facts of this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

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

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

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

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

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

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

TP adjustment of A&M expenses – Rs.32,63,66,267/-. (b) Disallowance on account of Advertising & Marketing expenses – Rs.2,47,13,051/-. (c) Disallowance on account of management cost – Rs.1,54,77,351/-. (d) Disallowance on account of selling discount to HUL – Rs.3,25,68,847/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances proposed by the Assessing Officer

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

TP study report. 13. The assessee at the outset pointed out that ground of appeal No.1.1 is general in nature and the same merits to be dismissed. 14. The issue raised vide ground of appeal No.1.2 is against rejection of aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its manufacturing activities. 15. We find that similar issue arose before

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

TP study report. 13. The assessee at the outset pointed out that ground of appeal No.1.1 is general in nature and the same merits to be dismissed. 14. The issue raised vide ground of appeal No.1.2 is against rejection of aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its manufacturing activities. 15. We find that similar issue arose before

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

TP study report. 13. The assessee at the outset pointed out that ground of appeal No.1.1 is general in nature and the same merits to be dismissed. 14. The issue raised vide ground of appeal No.1.2 is against rejection of aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its manufacturing activities. 15. We find that similar issue arose before

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

TP study report. 13. The assessee at the outset pointed out that ground of appeal No.1.1 is general in nature and the same merits to be dismissed. 14. The issue raised vide ground of appeal No.1.2 is against rejection of aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its manufacturing activities. 15. We find that similar issue arose before

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

TDS claim in original return. The assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, for which the Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm's length price of international transactions. The TPO in order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed

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

TDS on such payments, Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked for disallowance of depreciation. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Bangalore ITAT has been set aside / over ruled / stayed by higher judicial authorities. We are therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

TDS on such payments, Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked for disallowance of depreciation. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Bangalore ITAT has been set aside / over ruled / stayed by higher judicial authorities. We are therefore

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

TDS on such payments, Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked for disallowance of depreciation. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Bangalore ITAT has been set aside / over ruled / stayed by higher judicial authorities. We are therefore

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

TDS on such payments, Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked for disallowance of depreciation. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Bangalore ITAT has been set aside / over ruled / stayed by higher judicial authorities. We are therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

method at entity level and selecting the comparables whose average profit margin was computed at 7.49% as compared to negative margin of (-) 6.68% of the appellant company and the TP adjustment is worked out as below: Single Year margins for the Comparables = 11.74% Margins for the Manufactured Products = -7.66% Operating Costs = Rs.200.86 Crs 11.74-(-7.66) x 200.86 TP adjustment = Rs.38.96