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

depreciation as charged by the assessee and comparables on the same assets. ……………….. 5. Another issue raised by the assessee is against the making of transfer pricing

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]

Transfer Pricing related grounds Ground No. 2: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in making a TP 2 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] adjustment of INR 27,05,17,208 to the income of the Appellant, by holding that the Appellant

RIETER INDIA PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rieter India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Gat No.768/2, Circle-5, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Pune Village Wing, Taluka Khandala, District Satara – 412 801 Pan : Aaacr3556P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the extent it is excess of subvention receipt. 5. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that “the purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Transfer Pricing Study Report of the assessee or Form 3CD.There is an Advance of Rs.10294,00,000/- by the Assessee to Air Products and Chemicals Inc USA. In the TPSR it is merely mentioned that the said advance is for supply of capital goods for Phase 2 of Kochi Project, however no specific schedule for delivery of the capital goods

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

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

Price ('ALP') of the payment for services as 'NIL' by\ndisregarding the detailed benchmarking approach and the\nmethodology adopted by the Appellant in its TP documentation\nmaintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules').\n8. Upholding/confirming the action of Ld. TPO, in going beyond\nthe scope under section 92CA

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)

transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.8.52 crore with the help of the following table given at pages 12 and 13 of his order: Total costs as above 1,841.00 Marketing expenses related to sale of product 87.84 Marketing Expenses as % of Total Costs 4.77% Manufacturing expenses 339.59 Manufacturing expenses as % of total cost 18.45% Overall profit of the company 257.41 Profit

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)

transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.8.52 crore with the help of the following table given at pages 12 and 13 of his order: Total costs as above 1,841.00 Marketing expenses related to sale of product 87.84 Marketing Expenses as % of Total Costs 4.77% Manufacturing expenses 339.59 Manufacturing expenses as % of total cost 18.45% Overall profit of the company 257.41 Profit

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

Depreciation and Employee benefit expenses to total Revenue was much higher than that of the comparables. Rejecting the RPM, he proceeded to determine the ALP of the Trading segment under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), by computing the transfer pricing

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

transfer pricing provisions and has also been judicially approved as well. However, the question is that which of the international transactions can be aggregated for a combined ALP determination approach? The answer to this question has been given generally in Knorr-Bremse (supra) by laying down the principles of aggregation and specifically in Magneti Marelli (supra) disapproving the aggregation

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The TPO by an order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.13,91,99,000/- in respect of manufacturing segment and also suggested adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fees of Rs.8,84,79,495/-. While doing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The TPO by an order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.13,91,99,000/- in respect of manufacturing segment and also suggested adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fees of Rs.8,84,79,495/-. While doing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S AMPACET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Ampacet Speciality Pune Products Private Limited, D-276, D-277, D-283, Ranjangaon Midc, Koregaon, Pune 412 220 Maharashtra Pan : Aaica2806P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO observed that the assessee had not properly allocated the expenses between the manufacturing and trading segments inasmuch as inadequate/no expenditure under the heads Employee benefit, Depreciation

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Transfer Pricing matters 5. Related Party Transactions 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/the Hon’ble DRP have erred in disallowing the interest of Rs. 68,40,000/-, calculated at the ad-hoc rate of 12% on the interest free securitydeposits given to related parties in relation to two flats

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150 /Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalco Water India Private Vs The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As . Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Naclo Water India Limited) Pune. S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Panchshil, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Nalco Water India Private Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune. . Limited, S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Hadapsar, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar & Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Assessee’S & Revenue’S Cross Appeals Ita No.150 & 151/Pun/2022 For A.Y. 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-13

transfer pricing adjustment, if any, has to be done for associated enterprises transactions only and not the entire turnover. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out the said exercise after verifying the computation of proportionate adjustment filed by assessee before us and also after calculating the margins of assessee in line with our directions in the paras above

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150 /Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalco Water India Private Vs The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As . Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Naclo Water India Limited) Pune. S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Panchshil, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Nalco Water India Private Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune. . Limited, S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Hadapsar, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar & Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Assessee’S & Revenue’S Cross Appeals Ita No.150 & 151/Pun/2022 For A.Y. 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-13

transfer pricing adjustment, if any, has to be done for associated enterprises transactions only and not the entire turnover. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out the said exercise after verifying the computation of proportionate adjustment filed by assessee before us and also after calculating the margins of assessee in line with our directions in the paras above

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer about the amalgamation between SPENI and SPNI under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act effective from 1 April 2015 and that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to pass the assessment order against a non-existent entity. The Tribunal has in fact observed that apart from the first communication dated 02 January 2017, there

E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS 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 & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 E-Gain Communications Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune. [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Egain Communication

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for 4 the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO by an order dated 13.10.2016 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.2,45,13,781/-. While doing so, the TPO had accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate method, but rejected the TP study report submitted by the assessee company