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

92D, 92E and section 92F are all precisely defining and facilitating provisions ultimately for the purpose of computing the income as stated in section 92. All the above stated sections provided in Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 belong to a separate code as such, enacted for the purpose of computing income from international transactions

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

92D, 92E and section 92F are all precisely defining and facilitating provisions ultimately for the purpose of computing the income as stated in section 92. All the above stated sections provided in Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 belong to a separate code as such, enacted for the purpose of computing income from international transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

68,205/- without appreciating the fact the assessee itself in the comparable furnished in its transfer pricing report has shown 'Ordinary profit' to be of 13.84% (as observed by the AO in the assessment order) as against the net profit margin of 26.40% shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case

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/-. Accordingly, the ground of appeal no.3 stands allowed in favour of the assessee. 28. The ground of appeal no.4 raised by the appellant relates to reimbursement of cost. By this ground of appeal, the appellant contended 19 that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for the reason that the reimbursement on account

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

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 of such

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

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 of such

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

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 of such

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

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income

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”].

Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income tax Rules, 1962 and the various submissions made by the Appellant. 2. Provision of Corporate Guarantee 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the learned TPO erred in concluding and the Hon’ble DRP erred in confirming

BURCKHARDT COMPRESSION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.221/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Burckhardt Compression India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.304, Village: Kondhapuri, Pune – Nagar Road, Tal: Shirur, Pune-412209. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aadcb2058D …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avchat Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Drp/Tpo/Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of “1. Rs.2,08,64,219/- On Account Of Adjustment Made To International Transaction Of Payment Of Management Services & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Erred In Directing The Disallowance. The Assessee Company Has Made Payment To Its Associated 2. Enterprise Of Rs.2,08,64,219/- Towards Manufacturing Service Fees & There Is Error Of Considering In Assessment An Arm’S Length Price Of This Expenditure As ‘Nil’. 3. The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 In Pursuance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel, Dated 23.12.2015 Of The Ao In Case Of The Assessee Is Bad In Law. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

68,928/-. For TPO, the transaction of payment of Management Services Fee (MSF) of Rs.2,08,64,219/- with BC-AG is the solitary transaction for TP adjustments. 6. The assessee paid this amount to BG-AG towards reimbursement/recovery of actual cost incurred by the BC-AG. 7. In TP study by assessee, the TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method