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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce higher profits to the assessee. In support of such proposition, reliance has been

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce higher profits to the assessee. In support of such proposition, reliance has been

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

loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce higher profits to the assessee. In support of such proposition, reliance has been

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

transfer pricing study has not resulted in any addition and ALP was accepted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the receipts are fixed at US$ 8.5 per hour and the margin of profit became higher only because the operation costs were less being in the non voice based BPO services. Even though the authorities relied on "arranged" transaction

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.

loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton

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.

loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

losses to be carried forward in case resultant transfer pricing adjustment is less than voluntary adjustment offered in turn of income

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

losses to be carried forward in case resultant transfer pricing adjustment is less than voluntary adjustment offered in turn of income

FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

forward depreciation/business losses can be given set off from the total income of the assessee. On this issue, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255, AO held that the set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation should be done before quantifying the allowable deduction u/s.10A

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

carrying out its business of manufacturing and selling of passenger cars, in order to promote sale of cars, was required to keep cars for the purpose of display in various events, photo shoots, road shows, tournaments and advertisement campaigns. The assessee also provided its cars to top management employees of India as well as for the official

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

carrying out its business of manufacturing and selling of passenger cars, in order to promote sale of cars, was required to keep cars for the purpose of display in various events, photo shoots, road shows, tournaments and advertisement campaigns. The assessee also provided its cars to top management employees of India as well as for the official

M/S. A B KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ab Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aarfa5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune

Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing addition to the extent of international transactions under the segment of ‗Manufacturing activity‘. 12.1. The assessee has raised the following additional ground, which reads as under: Ground of appeal 10 – Recomputation of losses to be carried forward

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

loss for Honeywell group on an overall basis to the extent of public shareholding in the assessee company. It was, therefore, contended that in such a scenario, it could not be said that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the overseas Honeywell entities to produce higher profits to the assessee. In support of such proposition, reliance has been

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

carried out by the assessee under System Integration segment and that Nelco should be rejected as non-comparable to the System Integration segment of the assessee and should be removed from the final set of the comparable companies. 17. The CIT(A) observed that the System Integration segment designs and executes projects involving automation of manufacturing plant, storage and distribution

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

carried out by the assessee under System Integration segment and that Nelco should be rejected as non-comparable to the System Integration segment of the assessee and should be removed from the final set of the comparable companies. 17. The CIT(A) observed that the System Integration segment designs and executes projects involving automation of manufacturing plant, storage and distribution

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

carried out by the assessee shall decide this issue de-novo. Accordingly, ground No. 8 raised in the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Further, the Honourable Tribunal in assessee‘s own case for AY 2009- (h) 10 (ITA 514/PUN/2014), (ITA 566/PUN/2014), (CO 24/PUN/2015) the Hon‘ble Tribunal respectively observed that: “28. The case of assessee before

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

carried out in Mauritius and Dubai where taxes were not levied on income. He held that the Associated Enterprises (AEs) ploughed back the income earned by them to India through dividends and remuneration to Shri Vinod Jadhav, who, in turn, claimed such income as exempt on the ground of his Non-resident status. It was further noted that the Settlement