DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 2348 of the Act is unwarranted and the same be deleted and/or correspondingly reduced. 5. Ground No. 5 Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

section 234B of the Act be deleted for AY 2005-06. 4. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in computing the transfer pricing adjustment on the entire cost of sales of CBU Unit of the Appellant instead of limiting

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

section 234B of the Act be deleted for AY 2005-06. 4. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in computing the transfer pricing adjustment on the entire cost of sales of CBU Unit of the Appellant instead of limiting

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.500/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation in the hands of assessee. The ground of appeal No.3 is thus, allowed. 14. The ground of appeal No.4 is not pressed and hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 15. The ground of appeal No.5 is in respect of levying interest under section 234B

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

depreciation be allowed to be carried\nforward to AY 2021-22.\nInterest levied under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the\nAct

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Depreciation cannot be computed as per American rules applicable to the parent company. Therefore, Mr. Ostwal was correct in adjusting margin of profit of the taxpayer.” Thus, the Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune has also allowed adjustments made by the appellant to its profitability to account for difference and ensure comparability of the entities being compared. 10.6 The appellant has contended

ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Depreciation cannot be computed as per American rules applicable to the parent company. Therefore, Mr. Ostwal was correct in adjusting margin of profit of the taxpayer.” Thus, the Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune has also allowed adjustments made by the appellant to its profitability to account for difference and ensure comparability of the entities being compared. 10.6 The appellant has contended

FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

234B of the Act, as applicable, on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Appellant on account of transfer pricing adjustment on which is due to difference of opinion and as at the due date of payment of advance tax by no means the Appellant could have estimated such adjustments and consequential tax on such adjustment

SATISH S. BANSAL,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation under provision of section 32 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 ITA No. 119/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 6. The Appellant denies himself in law and on facts to be liable to be tax on an amount being Rs.1,39,643/-, being addition made as disallowance under section 14A of the Act, under

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

M/S. ADLER MEDIEQUIP PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

234B of the Act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under section 234D of the Act. Initiation of penalty proceedings 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty under Section

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

section 234B of the Act on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Appellant on account of transfer pricing which is due to difference of opinion and as at the due date of payment of advance tax by no means the Appellant could have estimated such adjustments and consequential tax on such adjustment. The appellant craves

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

234B and 234C of the Act being mandatory and consequential in nature, is dismissed. 6. So far as the ground No.4 is concerned, the same relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,90,000/- being remuneration to working partners. 7. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer during

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

234B, 243C and 3 SAS Research and Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A] 243D of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,28,30,770/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued