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.

10) of the Act. The assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study in the said case had benchmarked the international transaction by selecting the TNM Method. The TPO on a reference by the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 92CA(3

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.

10) of the Act. The assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study in the said case had benchmarked the international transaction by selecting the TNM Method. The TPO on a reference by the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 92CA(3

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

10) of the Act. The assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study in the said case had benchmarked the international transaction by selecting the TNM Method. The TPO on a reference by the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 92CA(3

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

10) r.w.s. 10AA(9) of the Act were squarely applicable. The second contention of assessee that there was no transfer of any goods or services from STPI to SEZ or vice-versa and the application of provisions of section 80IA(8) r.w.s. 10AA(9) of the Act was also held to be clearly applicable as the assessee was providing designing

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

3 the arm's length price of international transactions. The Assessing Officer was of the view that applying the provisions of section 80IA(10) r.w.s. 10A(7) of the Act, the profits earned by the assessee were more than ordinary profits. Hence, an adjustment had to be made while working out the eligible profit for the purpose of computation

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

10). 5 Halliburton Technology .Y. 2011-12 The transfer pricing regime is different from regular computation of income. Section 10A belongs to that part of regular computation of income and it should be computed independent of transfer pricing regulations and transfer pricing orders. It is not therefore, permissible for the Assessing Officer to work out section 10A deduction

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

3 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 companies. The assessee earned net margin of 92.98% and comparable companies is at the average net margin of comparable at 26.62% and by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A proposed to disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that

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

3 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 companies. The assessee earned net margin of 92.98% and comparable companies is at the average net margin of comparable at 26.62% and by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A proposed to disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

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

3 ITA Nos.584 & 620/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2005-06 ordinary profit earned by the comparable companies. The assessee earned net margin of 92.98% and comparable companies is at the average net margin of comparable at 26.62% and by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A proposed to disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

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

3 ITA Nos.584 & 620/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2005-06 ordinary profit earned by the comparable companies. The assessee earned net margin of 92.98% and comparable companies is at the average net margin of comparable at 26.62% and by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A proposed to disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

3 STPI units- two Software Technology Parks located in Pune & one in Chennai ( Section 10A units) and an SEZ Units ( Section 10AA Unit) located at Pune. For the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed the following deductions from its total income: AY Section 10A Section 10AA Page reference Deduction Deduction

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

3 STPI units- two Software Technology Parks located in Pune & one in Chennai ( Section 10A units) and an SEZ Units ( Section 10AA Unit) located at Pune. For the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed the following deductions from its total income: AY Section 10A Section 10AA Page reference Deduction Deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 92C(1) of the Act and the ALP is determined by TPO by not applying any method at all or by choosing a method which is not prescribed u/s.92C(1) of the Act, then such a determination of ALP frustrates the transfer pricing addition and deleted the transfer pricing addition made thereon by holding the methods prescribed for determining

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

section 10A of the Act. 3. Non consideration of contemporaneous nature of data Erred in conducting arm's length analysis based on information of comparable companies available at the time of transfer pricing assessment but not available at the time of compliance with the transfer pricing regulations by the Appellant. 4. Non consideration of multiple year data Erred

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts that transfer pricing adjustment to the international transactions of the Appellant and corporate tax adjustment made is on account of difference of opinion as to application of selection criterion for selection of comparable companies, incoherent approach, interpretation of the provisions, interpretation of case laws etc. IV Additional ground

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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. 110,33.85,000 2 Mercedes