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

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

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

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

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

92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2005-06. 9. In computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the provision for compensation payable to module suppliers of Rs 2.53,03,903 as not an ascertained liability

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

92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2005-06. 9. In computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the provision for compensation payable to module suppliers of Rs 2.53,03,903 as not an ascertained liability

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

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause 3

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

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause 3

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

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

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

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2006-07. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in including the expenditure disallowed during the assessment proceedings of AY 2006-07 while computing the operating margin of the Appellant for AY 2006-07 for application of TNMM. The Appellant

MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIR.9,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2006-07. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in including the expenditure disallowed during the assessment proceedings of AY 2006-07 while computing the operating margin of the Appellant for AY 2006-07 for application of TNMM. The Appellant

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PRIVATE LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

92C & 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟). 2. Both the appeals of same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No.1068/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12, wherein the following grounds

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

92C & 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟). 2. Both the appeals of same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No.1068/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12, wherein the following grounds

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

92C(2) of the Act 2.8 failing to appreciate that the Appellant was claiming tax exemption under Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions which is a pre-requisite condition to make any adjustment under the provision of Chapter

M/S. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

92C(2) of the Act 2.8 failing to appreciate that the Appellant was claiming tax exemption under Section 10A of the Act and accordingly had no intention to shift profits outside India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions which is a pre-requisite condition to make any adjustment under the provision of Chapter