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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

C, Wing 1, EON Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCE4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Vishal Kalra Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar – DR Date of hearing 30-11-2022 Date of pronouncement 06-12-2022 आदेश / ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

C, Wing 1, EON Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCE4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Vishal Kalra Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar – DR Date of hearing 30-11-2022 Date of pronouncement 06-12-2022 आदेश / ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals

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.

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

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.

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

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

13 Halliburton Technology .Y. 2011-12 the Transfer Pricing Officer suggests that the operating profit declared by an assessee is compatible to the arm's length price norms and no adjustment is necessary, the operation of all those provisions come to an end. If the, Assessing Officer has to make any other adjustment towards computing deduction available under section

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

13 - Transfer pricing adjustment to be limited to the international transactions with AEs only (without prejudice ground) Erred in facts and in the circumstances of the case by not restricting! proportionating the transfer pricing adjustment to the international transaction with AEs only while making adjustment at entity level. Ground No. 14 - Inappropriate use of single year data Erred

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 92C(2) of the Act and the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required on these grounds at this stage. Accordingly, they are also dismissed as consequential or premature. Thus, out of the grounds No.1 to 13 relating to Transfer Pricing issues, only grounds

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

transfer pricing documentation, assessee applied filter to reject the companies having negative worth showing that the assessee has rejected companies whose capital has been eroded as a result of continuous losses, that persistent operating loss makers have been rejected by assessee on the most conservative approach and requested to include Mahindra Ashtec Limited and Artson Engineering Ltd. as comparables

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

transfer pricing documentation, assessee applied filter to reject the companies having negative worth showing that the assessee has rejected companies whose capital has been eroded as a result of continuous losses, that persistent operating loss makers have been rejected by assessee on the most conservative approach and requested to include Mahindra Ashtec Limited and Artson Engineering Ltd. as comparables

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

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

C” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.584/PUN/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर

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

C” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.584/PUN/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर

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

c) Chennai STP unit ; and A.Y.2011-12 d) SEZ unit at Pune. The details of the STPI unit and the expiration of the tax holiday are provided as under: Sr. Unit Tax holiday under No. section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) 1 STP unit 1 at Pune Available up to AY 2007-08 2 STP unit 2

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

c) Chennai STP unit ; and A.Y.2011-12 d) SEZ unit at Pune. The details of the STPI unit and the expiration of the tax holiday are provided as under: Sr. Unit Tax holiday under No. section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) 1 STP unit 1 at Pune Available up to AY 2007-08 2 STP unit 2

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

2. Non-consideration of comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report Erred in law on facts and in circumstances of the case by not considering comparability analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report for the purpose of determination of arms-length price for benchmarking analysis. 3. Use of different turnover filter for identification of comparable companies

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

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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustments has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc and not due to concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act Erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustments has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc and not due to concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act Erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B