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

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

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

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer under sub- Section (3) of Section 92CA and even under Section 144C(8). The DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order and wherefore the word eligible assessee in Clause (1) and (15) and the proposed draft order referred to under Clause 144c(1) and (8) will have to be given full

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Transfer Pricing Officer-TPO under section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainablein the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

YAZAKI (I) P LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA YAZAKI AUTOCOMP LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.163/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

transfer pricing addition of Rs.13.19 crore; disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.1.04 crore; and disallowance u/s.40A(2)(a) at Rs.3.57 crore. Pursuant to such an order, a demand notice was issued. In addition, the AO also issued show cause notice u/s.274 for imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on all the issues on which the additions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion which has consequently resulted in adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Additional grounds of appeal 6 JCB India Limited, not a comparable company Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, JCB India Limited

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion which has consequently resulted in adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Additional grounds of appeal 6 JCB India Limited, not a comparable company Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, JCB India Limited

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

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

price on that date. 10. However, to avoid misuse of this beneficial provision, second proviso to section 50C(1) categorically provides that the first proviso shall apply only when the amount of consideration or part thereto was received through banking channel on or before the date 11 Dinar Umeshkumar More of agreement for transfer . In order to circumvent a situation

M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.251/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

transfer pricing addition of Rs.5.21 crore and odd, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The legal argument put forth on behalf of the assessee is that the procedure adopted by the authorities below in not passing draft order pursuant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustments. Then, the AO passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29-12-2011 marking it as “Assessment order’’. At the end of this order, the AO remarked that: `This is the proposed order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961’ determining the total income at Rs.1

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustments. Then, the AO passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29-12-2011 marking it as “Assessment order’’. At the end of this order, the AO remarked that: `This is the proposed order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961’ determining the total income at Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.607/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 10, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Highway, Dapodi, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune - 411012 Pan: Aaccs6638K

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act and the TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 29.01.2013, wherein he proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 56,12,71,932/- in respect of distribution segment, ₹ 12,42,71,340/- in respect of Management service fees payment and ₹ 39,72,50,242/-, totaled