M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

House, 3rd Floor, 2(1), Pune Lawani Plaza, B-Wing, Plot No.57/58, Sakorenagar, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411007 PAN: AANCS8819F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri Sangram Gaikwad Date of hearing : 25-08-2021 Date of pronouncement : 30-08-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate final

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

House, 3rd Floor, 2(1), Pune Lawani Plaza, B-Wing, Plot No.57/58, Sakorenagar, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411007 PAN: AANCS8819F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri Sangram Gaikwad Date of hearing : 25-08-2021 Date of pronouncement : 30-08-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate final

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

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

house adviser for sales (consignment stock, agent\nagreement, delivery conditions, etc.) and on ad-hoc issues;\nCoordination regarding group tax issues such as withholding\ntaxes on royalties and dividends, permanent establishment\nissues, tax implications of M & A activities, transfer pricing, etc.;\nMonitoring of worldwide tax rate and optimization of tax burden\nfor Semperit's local entities;\nCoordination on local

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

TP) study report, stated that costs Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., pertaining to RSC were reimbursed to Goodyear USA on cost-to- cost basis and further Goodyear USA aggregated the services provided by other Goodyear affiliates and compensated them on arm’s length basis. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee under the CUP method

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

TP) study report, stated that costs Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., pertaining to RSC were reimbursed to Goodyear USA on cost-to- cost basis and further Goodyear USA aggregated the services provided by other Goodyear affiliates and compensated them on arm’s length basis. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee under the CUP method

M/S. FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD, (FROMERLY KNOWN AS SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1695/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Fis Solutions (India) Private Limited. Formerly Known As Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited. Westend Centre One, Survey No. 169/1, Sector Ii, Aundh, Pune-411 007. Pan : Aaace7476K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

property led solutions and end-to end solutions, strategic acquisitions and financial year 2010-11 is an exceptional year of operation of Persistent Systems. We find support from the decision of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) at para 17 Page 13 of the paper book as under: “17. Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected

VISTEON ENGINEERING CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property, reduction in head count i.e. salary, etc. in tandem with the reduction in business. Consequently, the profitability of the assessee company was also adversely affected. The DRP without appreciating the facts on record rejected the contentions of the assessee out rightly. The ld. AR submitted that capacity utilization adjustment can be granted in two ways. Firstly, a part

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VISTEON ENGG. CENTER (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property, reduction in head count i.e. salary, etc. in tandem with the reduction in business. Consequently, the profitability of the assessee company was also adversely affected. The DRP without appreciating the facts on record rejected the contentions of the assessee out rightly. The ld. AR submitted that capacity utilization adjustment can be granted in two ways. Firstly, a part

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

method. He, however, rejected the assessee’s version of selecting comparables with multiple year data. After entertaining objections from the assessee, the TPO selected 11 companies, out of which 7 companies were from the list of the assessee and 4 new companies were added. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed to exclude Infosys Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

method. He, however, rejected the assessee’s version of selecting comparables with multiple year data. After entertaining objections from the assessee, the TPO selected 11 companies, out of which 7 companies were from the list of the assessee and 4 new companies were added. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed to exclude Infosys Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables