DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

Transfer Pricing perspective. No Royalty has been charged by AE for use of the Brand name: It has been submitted that generally the companies operating in this industry pays royalty for the use of brand name. Further, the rate of royalty is usually in the range of 3-4%. It is submitted that the taxpayer company has not paid

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271BA of the Act without appreciating the fact that there was a reasonable cause which resulted in delay in filing of Form 3CEB. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 18. The ld. AR submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is identical to the one raised in assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the submissions made for assessment year 2010-11 would hold good for assessment year 2011-12 as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 18. The ld. AR submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is identical to the one raised in assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the submissions made for assessment year 2010-11 would hold good for assessment year 2011-12 as well

EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 18. The ld. AR submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is identical to the one raised in assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the submissions made for assessment year 2010-11 would hold good for assessment year 2011-12 as well

EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 18. The ld. AR submitted that the issue raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is identical to the one raised in assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the submissions made for assessment year 2010-11 would hold good for assessment year 2011-12 as well

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,28,30,770/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued notice u/s.143(2) dated 11/09/2017. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order

STARENT NETWORKS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.585/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, against which the assessee is in appeal. 8. The first issue which is to be addressed by way of grounds of appeal No.4 and 5 is against transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee. 9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that though the TPO mentions

VENTURA INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP-2)2, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Transfer Pricing Officer, however, the assessee raised objections against selection of Infor Global Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. this company before the DRP as well as before us. The grievance of the assessee is, the company being involved in development of products and since no segmental details are available in the annual report, it cannot be treated as comparable

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

transfer pricing ('TP') adjustment of INR 25,88,00,000. The Appellant prays that the TP analysis conducted by the Appellant ought to be accepted and consequently the TP adjustment ought to be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO /Ld DRP erred in rejecting the audited segmental information

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

transfer pricing ('TP') adjustment of INR 25,88,00,000. The Appellant prays that the TP analysis conducted by the Appellant ought to be accepted and consequently the TP adjustment ought to be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO /Ld DRP erred in rejecting the audited segmental information

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

114/-\n6.\n13.1 Computation of Book Profit as per the provisions of section 115JB of the\nIncome Tax Act,:-.\nSr. No.\nParticulars\nAmount (in Rs.)\nजो दण्ड\nli.\nBook Profit as per Computation\n819,56,26,034/-\nTAX DEPARTMENT L\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.\n47,55,629/-\nliii\nAssessed Book Profit\n820,03,81,663/-\n13.2 Since, the tax liability

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

114 (Del) (vi) Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO (2020) 121 taxmann.com 6 (Bom) (vii) K.P. Manish Global Ingredients (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2021) 131 taxmann.com 158 (Chennai – Trib.) (viii) PCIT vs. Dharmesh Padamshibhai Patel (2023) 156 taxmann.com 491 (Guj) 17. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the Ld. PCIT be set aside

STARENT NETWORKS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.164/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Starent Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.P-17, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aaacn5937G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 6, Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) at page 45 had drawn final list of comparables, out of which there is no dispute vis-à-vis selection of Goldstone Technologies Ltd., L G S Global Ltd. and Softsol India Ltd. However, the assessee is aggrieved by inclusion of following concerns:- i) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. ii) E-infochip Ltd. iii) eZest Solutions

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