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

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]

section 92C prescribes 6 methods by which this exercise can be done by adopting most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transactions or functions performed by the parties. In the present case the revenue as well as appellant both has agreed that transactional net margin method is the most appropriate method for determination

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

3 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., observed that the assessee did not provide any rational basis for applying the allocation keys for bifurcating combined expenses under different segments. Rejecting such allocation, he distributed all the costs in the ratio of revenues from the three segments. He further found that the assessee’s ratio of Depreciation and Employee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C, the other method for determination of the arms’ length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C, the other method for determination of the arms’ length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE , PANVEL vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 595/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

3 Trademarks, patents and knowhow 1,68,49,209/- 4 Other assets 20,66,411/- Total 2,14,50,647/- The facts on records spells out that the depreciation in respect of aforesaid issues were disallowed in the earlier assessment years. The Assessing Officer stating the same reasons as done in the assessee‟s case in the earlier years disallowed

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

depreciation adjustment as given by Ld.D.R.P. 3. The ld.AO erred in making (& Ld.D.R.P. erred in confirming) a disallowance of Rs.95,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on software purchase considering it to be payment against licensee fees, whereas it was actually relating to purchase of goods. 4. The ld.AO erred in making (& Ld.D.R.P. erred in confirming

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

92C or 92CA shall be subject to safe harbour rules. Sub-section (2) states that: ‘the Board may, for the purpose of sub-section (4), make rules for Safe Harbour’. The relevant rules from 10TA to 10TG came to be inserted by the Income-tax (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2013 w.e.f. 18-09-2013. Rule 10TD(1) provides that the transfer