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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

3. Learned counsel states at the outset that the assessee’s first substantive ground is general in nature. Rejected accordingly. 4. Next comes the first substantive issue of Section 10AA deduction disallowance of Rs.1,66,90,42,654/- made by the lower authorities invoking Section 10 AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA (10) of the Act thereby alleging it to have earned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance is merited under section 10AA of the Act. The basic condition for application of the said provisions of the Act are an arrangement between the parties, which is so arranged as to enable the assessee to earn super normal profits. The TPO/Assessing Officer/DRP has not pointed out any such arrangement whatsoever between the assessee and the comparable companies selected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance is merited under section 10AA of the Act. The basic condition for application of the said provisions of the Act are an arrangement between the parties, which is so arranged as to enable the assessee to earn super normal profits. The TPO/Assessing Officer/DRP has not pointed out any such arrangement whatsoever between the assessee and the comparable companies selected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. HALLIBURTON TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Invoking Section 80La( 10) , Of The Act When Bare Reading Of The Provision Does Not Impose Such Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance On A.O.? 3. Whether On The Facts, Circumstances Of The Case And- In Law, Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Interpreting The Words According To The Object Of The Provision Ignoring The Fundamental Principle Of Interpretation Of Stature That Nothing Should Be Added To The Words Used By Legislature? 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Imposing Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance Ignoring The Fact That Section 80Ia(10) Of The Act Is A “Domestic Transfer Pricing” Provision & Proving Tax Avoidance Is Not One

10A, without any further adjustment. Viston Technical & Ser ices Centre (P) Ltd. (2012) 24 taxmann.com. 353 (Chen) "It is thus clearly specified in section 92(3) that where computation of income was done, considering the arm's length price for the international transactions and such computation result in reducing the income chargeable to tax or increasing the loss

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISTEON ENGG. CENTRE (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.625/Pun/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

3 M/s. Visteon Engineering Centre (India) Private Limited failed to controvert the contentions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that ld. Assessing Officer granted deduction u/s.10A of the Act after setting off of the unabsorbed depreciation available with the assessee and disallowed

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the relief under section 89 and held that the amount/ compensation received by the assessee in full and final settlement on voluntary retirement is taxable as profits in lieu of salary under the provisions of section 17(3)(i) of the Act. Perusal of the CIT(A)’s order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order

MARUTI KESHAVRAO DIDHORE,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia). It postulates that while qualifying the\namount to be made out of own sweet will, it had claimed the same\nas expenditure. In such a situation, failure to bring this\ncompensation to tax and granting total exemption treating it as a\ncapital receipt would result in double jeopardy to the exchequer. This\ntest of applicability

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

disallowance. The Appellant objects to the above observations made by the learned CIT(A). 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the alternate ground of appeal [ground no. 7 before CIT(A)] filed by the Appellant with respect non- grant of deduction by AO under section 10B (modified to section 10A

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

disallowance. The Appellant objects to the above observations made by the learned CIT(A). 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the alternate ground of appeal [ground no. 7 before CIT(A)] filed by the Appellant with respect non- grant of deduction by AO under section 10B (modified to section 10A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

3 to 5 years. The process requires certain revenue expenditure like purchase of raw material, chemicals, consumables, salaries, testing charges, utilities like steam, power, expenses on clinical trials, stationery etc.. Such expenditure were capitalized in books of account and amortized over a period of 5 years, the respondent-assessee company claimed that the treatment given in the books

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

3 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the view of AO in holding an amount of Rs.2,25,18,608/- disallowed on account of onsite/deputation of technical manpower (DTM) software services is not eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act. 11. We note that the assessee computed 100% profits ascribed towards onsite/deputation

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

3 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the view of AO in holding an amount of Rs.2,25,18,608/- disallowed on account of onsite/deputation of technical manpower (DTM) software services is not eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act. 11. We note that the assessee computed 100% profits ascribed towards onsite/deputation

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

10A), clause (10B), clause (11), clause (12), clause (13) or clause\n(13A) of section 10), due to or received by an assessee from an\nemployer or a former employer or from a provident or other fund, to the\nextent to which it does not consist of contributions by the assessee or\ninterest on such contributions or any sum received

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

10A by providing that the report of the auditor in the prescribed form should be filed before the specified date referred to in section 44AB, which, in turn, refers to section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

10A by providing that the report of the auditor in the prescribed form should be filed before the specified date referred to in section 44AB, which, in turn, refers to section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1), , PUNE vs. M/S CAPEGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES I LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGAGE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1), M/S.Capegemini Technology Pune. Vs Services India Ltd., (Formerly . Known As Igate Global Solutions Ltd., ) Plot No.114, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase- Iii, Midc Sez, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aabcm 4573 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe –Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Appeals For A.Y.2005-06 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order, Dated 09.03.2020 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-1/Dcit Circ.1(1)/77/2013-14/38, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,89,93,369/- and the consequent reduction made in the deduction allowable u/s. 1 OA on account of DTM and onsite software development income without considering the facts that the assessee did not exercise control and supervision over

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

3 has been raised by the Revenue against the\nfinding of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim of deduction\nu/s.80JJAA of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate to\ndeal with this ground while adjudicating the Revenue's appeal\nin ITA No. 1256/PUN/2023 in subsequent paras.\n29. Ground No.11 raised by the assessee is that for\ncomputing book profit

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

3 has been raised by the Revenue against the\nfinding of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim of deduction\n\nu/s.80JJAA of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate to\ndeal with this ground while adjudicating the Revenue's appeal\nin ITA No. 1256/PUN/2023 in subsequent paras.\n\n29. Ground No.11 raised by the assessee is that for\ncomputing