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

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

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

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

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

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

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

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

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

section 92C(1), the ld. DR submitted that the TPO adopted any other method. We do not find any substance in the argument of the ld. DR that the TPO applied `any other method’. Firstly, the TPO has nowhere mentioned in his order that he was applying such `any other method’ in terms of rule 10AB. Secondly

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

section 92C(1), the ld. DR submitted that the TPO adopted any other method. We do not find any substance in the argument of the ld. DR that the TPO applied `any other method’. Firstly, the TPO has nowhere mentioned in his order that he was applying such `any other method’ in terms of rule 10AB. Secondly

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

68,30,646\nTNMM\n7\nPurchase of Fixed Assets\n13,92,23,545\nTNMM\n8\nPayment towards consultancy and\n0\nNA\nprofessional services\n9\nPayment towards technical\n11,80,799\nTNMM\nservices\n10\nPurchase of Stores, spares and\n81,46,129\nTNMM\nsample\n11\nExpenditure Reimbursed Paid\n47,37,318\nCUP\n12\nGuarantee Commission Paid\n78,89,367\nOTHER\nMETHOD

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Section 92C(3). 3.14 The above principal was also ruled in the case of Nielson India Pvt Ltd. [TS-347-ITAT-2016-Mum], wherein the Tribunal held that TPO/DRP not justified in determining ALP at Nil on ground of furnishing of no documentary evidence despite furnishing of details of services as well as allocation of cost pertaining to these

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Section 92C(3). 3.14 The above principal was also ruled in the case of Nielson India Pvt Ltd. [TS-347-ITAT-2016-Mum], wherein the Tribunal held that TPO/DRP not justified in determining ALP at Nil on ground of furnishing of no documentary evidence despite furnishing of details of services as well as allocation of cost pertaining to these

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 92C of the Act considers the entire 16 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 range of results where more than one result is obtained and there is no rule under the Indian transfer pricing legislation for a blanket rejection of loss making companies but however, the TPO noted that at the time of transfer pricing documentation, assessee

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 92C of the Act considers the entire 16 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 range of results where more than one result is obtained and there is no rule under the Indian transfer pricing legislation for a blanket rejection of loss making companies but however, the TPO noted that at the time of transfer pricing documentation, assessee

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

68,847/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances proposed by the Assessing Officer in his draft assessment order dated 23.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the appellant company filed objection before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Pune (DRP) contesting all the above proposed 8 additions/disallowances. The main contention of the appellant company before

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

92C , 92D and 92E , "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

92C , 92D and 92E , "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

92C , 92D and 92E , "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

68,346/- ------------------------- A.Y. 2011-12 Total: Rs. 9,82,82,571/- ----------------------- Thus, the TPO had made final TP adjustment of Rs. 9,82,82,571/-. 14. When the matter travelled before the CIT(A) the assessee had filed detailed written submissions which are on record and need not be repeated here again for the sake of brevity

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.14/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mercedes-Benz India Privatge The Acit, Circle-9, Pune. Limited, Vs E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, . Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal.Khed, Pune – 410 501. Pan: Aabcm 1786 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Darpan Kirpalani – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises Against The Acit, Circle-9, Pune’S Assessment Dated 07.11.2017 Framed In Furtherance To Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai “Drp”S Directions Dated 14.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.27, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W. S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 92C(3)/92CA(1) and hence, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The transfer pricing adjustment and the Transfer Pricing Order passed should be quashed as being bad in law or illegal or void ab initio. Ground No. 2 - General ground related to Transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.4

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06

68,191/-. On the basis of the sustained amount of transfer pricing addition, the AO imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,48,40,838/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the same. The Revenue has come up in appeal against such deletion. 3. We have heard both the sides through Virtual Court and gone through