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

SANDVIK ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 535/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष"

144C of the Act by issuing notice of demand and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the assessment order dated March 26, 2013 instead of issuing a draft assessment order.” 3. Assessee raises the issue mentioning that the order passed by the AO u/s.144C(1) constitutes an assessment order

M/S. EATON INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.536/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd., 145, Off Mumbai Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pimpri, Pune – 411018 …. Pan: Aabce4955C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act, who in turn, passed order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 28.01.2013 proposing an upward adjustment of ₹ 21,36,68,000/- to the international transactions of manufacturing business in respect of the truck components unit and an adjustment of ₹ 77,78,613/- to the international transactions

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

KOHLER POWER (I) P LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS LOMBARDINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,),AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2467/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2014 applied CUP method and determined the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of service fees at Nil as against Rs.3,45,55,434/- determined

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

Transfer Pricing Study Report and the scientific methodology adopted by the Appellant to determine hourly rates and their benchmarking with third parties using Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (―CUP‖). 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP have erred in interpreting/ applying the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

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

144C(3) of the Act confirmed the addition of Rs.3,32,21,272/- in respect of the payment of management fee by the assessee to IAC Shanghai. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the entire transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3,32,21,272/- made by 5 ITA No.749/PUN/2022

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act) and thereby assessing the total income at Rs.144,56,24,160/- 5. Background relating to transfer pricing

TDK ELECTRONICS AG, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG),,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -1,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit (It), (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) Circle-1, Pune C/O. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., E-22-25, Midc Satpur, Nashik 422 007 Pan : Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transactions. Pursuant to the order passed by the TPO, the AO passed a draft order dated 21.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.33.48 crore by making an addition of Rs.38,77,566/- on account of `Income from fees for technical services’. The draft order was admittedly

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

144C(13) r.w.s. section 144B of the Act in pursuance of the directions dated 23 March 2021 issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel -3, WZ (hereinafter referred to as 'Hon'ble DRP'), on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and consequentially the learned AO have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection against appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2009-10. 2. This bunch of cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue and also Cross Objection filed by assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection against appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2009-10. 2. This bunch of cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue and also Cross Objection filed by assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection against appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2009-10. 2. This bunch of cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue and also Cross Objection filed by assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PRVIATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection against appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2009-10. 2. This bunch of cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue and also Cross Objection filed by assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed

MERCEDEZ-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection against appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2009-10. 2. This bunch of cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue and also Cross Objection filed by assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer pricing assessment proceedings in compliance to the TPO‟s direction. In this context, it was mentioned by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that though the assessee has submitted average margins of the comparable companies incorrectly, the same cannot be considered to be a failure on assessee‟s part to disclose fully and truly material facts because what has been wrongly

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer or the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall finalise the Assessment Order accordingly.” 6. The Assessing Officer thereafter, passes the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5