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

13 ITA No.749/PUN/2022, AY 2013-14 10AB-cannot justify a deviation from statutorily prescribed transfer pricing principles. As per Rule 10AB, any method applied must be based on "price charged or paid, or cost incurred or profit derived or loss incurred, or any other measurable benchmark, all of which must be derived from comparable uncontrolled transactions. The TPO has demonstrably

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

e-filed on 01/12/2018 which was subsequently\nrevised on 23/03/2019 and again revised on 23/08/2019\nshowing total income of Rs.527,10,75,950/-. The return has\nbeen processed by CPC u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act determining\nincome at Rs.724,67,72,290/-, after making two\nadjustments, firstly, denied deduction claimed u/s.80JJA at\nRs.60,72,090/- and also denied claim

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

e-filed on 01/12/2018 which was subsequently\nrevised on 23/03/2019 and again revised on 23/08/2019\nshowing total income of Rs.527,10,75,950/-. The return has\nbeen processed by CPC u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act determining\nincome at Rs.724,67,72,290/-,\nafter making two\nadjustments, firstly, denied deduction claimed u/s.80JJA at\nRs.60,72,090/- and also denied claim

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

13,379/-. (e) Disallowance of depreciation on certain items of stainless steel tables, stools, trollies used in the laboratory as Plant & Machinery of Rs.1,38,153/-. (f) Disallowance of Product Development Expenditure u/s 35(1)/37 of Rs.14,37,06,712/-. (g) Disallowance of donation u/s 37(1) of Rs.5,50,000/-. (h) Disallowance of repairs to building, plant

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

section 92C of the Act considers the entire 16 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 range of results where more than one result is obtained and there is no rule under the Indian transfer pricing legislation for a blanket rejection of loss making companies but however, the TPO noted that at the time of transfer pricing documentation, assessee applied

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

section 92C of the Act considers the entire 16 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 range of results where more than one result is obtained and there is no rule under the Indian transfer pricing legislation for a blanket rejection of loss making companies but however, the TPO noted that at the time of transfer pricing documentation, assessee applied

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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 Benz

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

1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), against the order dated 22 April 2021 (received on 22 April 2021) passed by the Additional/Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxi Income- tax Officer, National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'learned AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s. section 144C(13) r.w.s. section 144B

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 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.3,34,928/-. Eventually, in the draft assessment order dated 27-30-2014, the assessed income is quantified under normal provisions of Rs.4,20,40,680/- after grant of deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Rs.5,95,81,136/- is the total income computed u/s.115JB of the Act. 8. Aggrieved with the draft assessment

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

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

13]‖ The aforesaid explanation makes it clear that insertion of Explanation retrospectively was with sole object of clear the intention of the legislature and make it free from any misinterpretation. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the assessee in claiming education cess as expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act nor any malafide is established as when

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

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee was manufacturer of luxury passenger cars and for selling them in Indian market, the assessee also undertook import of M.B. Cars as Completely Built Units (CBUs) for resale in the Indian market. The TPO noted that the assessee had earned net profit margins of 8.74% against

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

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee was manufacturer of luxury passenger cars and for selling them in Indian market, the assessee also undertook import of M.B. Cars as Completely Built Units (CBUs) for resale in the Indian market. The TPO noted that the assessee had earned net profit margins of 8.74% against

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 92CB of the Act itself provides 5 Dana India Private Limited the meaning of "safe harbour" as the `circumstances in which the income-tax authorities shall accept the transfer price …. declared by the assessee.’ It is for the purpose of calculating value of various components under the safe harbour rules, such as, operating profit or operating expense etc. that