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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

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

112 support services August 21, 2008 of paper book) August 20, 2008 August 15, 2008 September 21, 2007, Set up and re-set of Keyfob August 29, 2007, PIN September 07, 2007, (Refer Page 119 to 120, September 03, 2007, 131 to 133 of paper August 29, 2007 book) 3.6 Despite the aforementioned evidences, the AO/DRP/TPO rejected the bench marking

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

112 support services August 21, 2008 of paper book) August 20, 2008 August 15, 2008 September 21, 2007, Set up and re-set of Keyfob August 29, 2007, PIN September 07, 2007, (Refer Page 119 to 120, September 03, 2007, 131 to 133 of paper August 29, 2007 book) 3.6 Despite the aforementioned evidences, the AO/DRP/TPO rejected the bench marking

SHRI GANESH SERVA SEVA SANGHA SHRIPUR,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

112 Maharashtra PAN : AAETS6330H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by CIT(Exemption), Pune u/s.263

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 at pages

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 at pages

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 at pages

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 at pages

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 at pages

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 at pages

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 92CA(3) of the Act and pointed out that no such adjustment was ever made in the hands of assessee. Referring to the order of TPO, he stated that the allegation was that no services were rendered by associated enterprise and no proof of rendition of services was provided by assessee. In reply, the learned Authorized Representative

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PRIVATE LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 92CA(3) of the Act and pointed out that no such adjustment was ever made in the hands of assessee. Referring to the order of TPO, he stated that the allegation was that no services were rendered by associated enterprise and no proof of rendition of services was provided by assessee. In reply, the learned Authorized Representative

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

112 taxmann.com 301 ( Delhi-Trib) wherein, the Tribunal has held and observed as follows: “11. Cigniti Technologies Ltd. 11.1 The learned DRP observed that the company was included by the DRP in assessment year 2012-30 and, therefore, should be retained in the year under consideration also for the same reasons. The learned counsel of the assessee referred to Page

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Adjustment 5 The Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld AO/TPO's action of making an adjustment of Rs. 2,10,10,000 to the income of the appellant by holding that its international transactions do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

112/-. Referring to the order of TPO, it was says that transactions with associated enterprises were in fact controlled. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the total value of arm's length price should be determined at Nil since the assessee had charged maximum and if it charges more than that, then losses of associated enterprises

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

112/-. Referring to the order of TPO, it was says that transactions with associated enterprises were in fact controlled. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the total value of arm's length price should be determined at Nil since the assessee had charged maximum and if it charges more than that, then losses of associated enterprises

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

112/-. Referring to the order of TPO, it was says that transactions with associated enterprises were in fact controlled. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the total value of arm's length price should be determined at Nil since the assessee had charged maximum and if it charges more than that, then losses of associated enterprises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee commission of Rs.91,03,879/-. The factual matrix of the issue is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the respondent-assessee had provided corporate guarantee for borrowing made by its foreign subsidiaries. Further, it had not charged any corporate guarantee commission. The respondent-assessee