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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Section 92C(3). 3.14 The above principal was also ruled in the case of Nielson India Pvt Ltd. [TS-347-ITAT-2016-Mum], wherein the Tribunal held that TPO/DRP not justified in determining ALP at Nil on ground of furnishing of no documentary evidence despite furnishing of details of services as well as allocation of cost pertaining to these services

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

160 30,42,10,447 8 Nalco Water India Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15. 13. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of assessee, economic analysis carried out discussion made above, Arm‟s Length Price of transactions as reported by the assessee company is altered and an adjustment of Rs. 32,61,52,919/- is made in respect

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

160/- and other income of Rs.37,24,307/-. The net profit before tax and prior period items was Rs.50,66,212/-. The Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order passed under section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act had vide para 4 taken note of transfer pricing

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

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised two additional grounds, which read as under: Ground of appeal 8 – Following incorrect methodology for computing capacity utilization adjustment The learned AO erred in granting capacity utilization adjustment by considering only depreciation

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

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised two additional grounds, which read as under: Ground of appeal 8 – Following incorrect methodology for computing capacity utilization adjustment The learned AO erred in granting capacity utilization adjustment by considering only depreciation

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

section 92C prescribes 6 methods by which this exercise can be done by adopting most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transactions or functions performed by the parties. In the present case the revenue as well as appellant both has agreed that transactional net margin method is the most appropriate method for determination

M/S. CHEMETALL RAI INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

160/- minus Rs.6,07,50,277/-) . 5 M/s. Chemetall Rai India Limited 4. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the remand reports, orders of the authorities below and the details furnished by the assessee came to hold that the view point of the TPO/AO in proposing/ making the transfer pricing adjustment/addition for a total payment of Rs.7.27 crore

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 92 provides that: `Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price’. Thus it is graphically clear that the ALP and the consequential transfer pricing adjustment is contemplated only in respect of the international transactions and not the entity level transactions. It is seen from the TPO’s order that

SPECTRAFORCE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 92C(3) and Rule 10B(3) are satisfied in the present case. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/DRP has erred in enhancing the income of Appellant by Rs. 2,90,89,437 while holding that the Appellant's international transaction pertaining to provision of Staff 8 Augmentation Service

SEQUENCE DESIGN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2106/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

160/- which was further revised on 16.12.2015 declaring income of Rs.2,69,48,770/-. After the return being processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, case selected for scrutiny under CASS and reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TP) for determination of Arm’s Length Prices (ALP) in respect of international transaction entered into with the Associated Enterprises

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

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 277/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). 2 A.Y.2011 -12 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee company is 100% subsidiary of the Bobst Group SA, Lausanne, Switzerland. The assessee company is handling sales, service and technical functions of the parent company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. TRIZETTO SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, “D” Building, Weikfield, It-Citi Infopark, Nagar Road, Pune-411014. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aabct8862F Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Drp-3, Mumbai Dated 14.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- Whether The Drp Was Justified In Rejecting Eclerx Services Ltd. “1. Treating It As Kpo Without Appreciating That Kpo & Bpo Companies Both Fell Under Broader Ites Category & In Reality There Is Seamlessness In Ites Functions & Comparability Analysis Is Based On Functions, Assets & Risk. 2. Whether The Drp Was Right In Law & On Facts In Directing Tpo To Re- Compute The Operating Profit Margin Of The Assessee Without Considering The One Time Price Rebate Of Rs.5,32,10,455/-.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Bpo Services I.E. Remote Processing Applications Including

160/- Operating profit (OP) 3,32,66,946/- (-)1,99,43,509/- OP/OC (PLI) 21.15% (-)12.67% 3.7 In view of the re-computation of the assessee’s PLI as shown above and the determination of the average PLI of the comparable companies at 25.64% (as against 15.66% computed by the assessee in the TP Study Report), the TPO determined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

price stood proved by the fact that the shares were transacted on the stock exchange on 06.05.2005 at Rs.21.70/- per share i.e., the same rate at which the assessee had purchased them in May,2004. The sale proceeds were received through account payee cheques and duly deposited in the assessee's bank account and not withdrawn in cash. Security transaction

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

transfer of the capital asset.' But here the question is, in the earlier years though investments are shown as investments in the books of account for Income-tax purposes, the same was shown as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the assessee-bank changed its method of accounting during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under present appeal

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

transfer of the capital asset.' But here the question is, in the earlier years though investments are shown as investments in the books of account for Income-tax purposes, the same was shown as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the assessee-bank changed its method of accounting during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under present appeal

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

transfer of the capital asset.' But here the question is, in the earlier years though investments are shown as investments in the books of account for Income-tax purposes, the same was shown as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the assessee-bank changed its method of accounting during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under present appeal