GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 92C which provides that: “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or … shall be determined by one of the following methods, being the most appropriate method…’. The mechanism for determining the ALP under these methods has been given in Rule 10B. Insofar as the intra-group services under consideration are concerned, the determination

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 92C which provides that: “The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or … shall be determined by one of the following methods, being the most appropriate method…’. The mechanism for determining the ALP under these methods has been given in Rule 10B. Insofar as the intra-group services under consideration are concerned, the determination

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

depreciation @25%, he made an addition of Rs.81,60,774/-. Thus, it is apparent that the AO deviated from the order passed by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. M/s. Carraro India Private Limited 6. The primary question which requires adjudication is as to whether the action of the AO in this regard can be treated as valid

M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

depreciation @25%, he made an addition of Rs.81,60,774/-. Thus, it is apparent that the AO deviated from the order passed by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. M/s. Carraro India Private Limited 6. The primary question which requires adjudication is as to whether the action of the AO in this regard can be treated as valid

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

Section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied for rejecting/ disregarding the transfer pricing study prepared by the Appellant. Corporate Taxation 2. Erroneous disallowance of depreciation

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2111/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

92C(1) of the Act should be done as per the most appropriate method. To put it more simply, each international transaction is viewed separately and independent of other international transactions for determining its ALP unless they are closely linked. It is impermissible to combine more than one unrelated international transaction for determining their ALP in a unified manner when

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

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

92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and Rule 10C of the\nRules D\nFactual Grounds:\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in contrary to law,\nLd. TPO/Ld. AO pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble\nDRP, erred in:\n6. Making an addition of INR 5,66,05,177 to the Appellant's\nincome

AMPHENOL INTERCONNECT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2300/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 2 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), had been violated by the appellant and thus, thereby, erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,46,406/- u/s. 92C on the basis of the order of the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) dated 18.01.2016 in the case of the appellant company. 2] The learned AO / DRP erred

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation under Section 32 in the AY 2004-05. 3 5.3 The learned AO has erred by rejecting the allowance of the write back of the excess Provision towards Obsolete stock of Finished Goods of Rs.30,42,000 which was disallowed in earlier years' assessments. 5.4 The learned AO has erred by rejecting the allowance of the claim of Rs.10

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 92C(2) of the ITA, 1961 though specifically requested during the course of hearing. 8. The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the Ground of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing. 4. Further, the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 92C(2) of the ITA, 1961 though specifically requested during the course of hearing. 8. The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the Ground of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing. 4. Further, the assessee

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 92C(2) of the ITA, 1961 though specifically requested during the course of hearing. 8. The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the Ground of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing. 4. Further, the assessee

INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

depreciation (other than higher rates for which suitable adjustment was granted by the TPO). The grounds taken by the assessee in this regard, therefore, fail. 13. The next issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against the exclusion of Federal-Mogul Bearings India Ltd. (FMBIL) from the list of comparables drawn by the assessee. 14. The facts relating

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. INA BEARINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

depreciation (other than higher rates for which suitable adjustment was granted by the TPO). The grounds taken by the assessee in this regard, therefore, fail. 13. The next issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against the exclusion of Federal-Mogul Bearings India Ltd. (FMBIL) from the list of comparables drawn by the assessee. 14. The facts relating

EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application moved by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2432/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 92C(2) of the Act. During transfer pricing proceedings, TPO carried out a fresh search for appropriate comparable companies and also applied additional/modified filters for selection of comparable companies. Accordingly, he rejected all the comparable companies selected by the assessee in the TP study except 1. The TPO finally selected four companies as comparables which read as under

VEGA INDIA LEVEL AND PRESSURE MEASUREMENT P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

92C of the Act provides for computation of arm's length price. Sub-section (1) gives five specific methods including the RPM and the TNMM and one general method for the ALP determination. The Act does not stipulate application of any specific method in any specific situation. Mechanism for determining the ALP under the five specific methods has been

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

92C(2) of the Act and the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required on these grounds at this stage. Accordingly, they are also dismissed as consequential or premature. Thus, out of the grounds No.1 to 13 relating to Transfer Pricing issues, only grounds

CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.15/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Carraro India Pvt. Ltd., B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune-412210. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaacc5292M …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Raised 16 Grounds In Its Appeal. Grounds No.2 To 11 Relate To The Tp Adjustments. Grounds No.1 & 12 To 16 Relate To Other Non-Tp/General/Consequential Issues. 3. Referring To Various Tp Related Grounds In This Appeal, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Apparent Typographical Mistakes In The Pli-Related Calculations Are Corrected & The Benefits Of +/-5% Available U/S 92C(2) Of The Act Are Granted, The Assessee Is At Home & No Addition

section 92C(2) of the Act and thereby erroneously concluding that the international transaction of the Appellant is not at arm’s length.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that this is the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.Nil. The assessee reported certain international transactions with