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

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

Transfer Pricing officer New Delhi W.P.(C) 6876 / 2008.  That the assessee pays royalty on the incremental sales attributable to the increased marketing spend. Thus, the advertisement and marketing expenditure of the Company, if at all resulted in indirect benefit to the AE, it could be in the form of increased royalty.  The assessee has also requested

M/S. PUBMATIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 655/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Pubmatic India Private Limited. 5Th Floor, Amar Paradigm, Survey No.110, Near D-Mart, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Baner Road, Pune-411 045. … Pan : Aadck0024A बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-4, Pune. …

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to benchmark arm's length price of international transactions of provision of software development and research services to its associated enterprises at ₹ 27,72,49,822/-. The assessee had applied TNMM method to benchmark international transactions in its TP study report and had selected certain concerns

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

168 by invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act, alleging that the Appellant earned more than 'ordinary profits' from its associated enterprise ('AE'). 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT failed to appreciate that once the arm's length price in respect

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer about the amalgamation between SPENI and SPNI under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act effective from 1 April 2015 and that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to pass the assessment order against a non-existent entity. The Tribunal has in fact observed that apart from the first communication dated 02 January 2017, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ALFA LAVAL INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in para 12 of its order had referred the same list which is similar to as reproduced in para 10 at page 8 of the Tribunal’s order dated 30.06.2017 (supra.). The TPO is directed to apply the TNMM method as in earlier years to exclude five concerns i.e. Axtel Industries 6 A.Y.2011-12 Ltd., Anup Engineering

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

RIETER MACHINE WORKS LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (IT), CIR-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rieter Machine Works Limited, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), C/O. Rieter India Private Limited, Circle-2, Pune 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Western Wing (A-2),Nyati Unitree, Samrat Ashok Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006 Pan : Aadcr1340N Appellant Respondent

price to the Indian entity, as has been tried to be projected but which is not actually the true state of affairs as has transpired from the above discussion, it would have satisfied this condition. 12. Now we move on to the second Table of the `IT Cost Reimbursement’ given on page 489 of the Paper book. This table deals

DANA ANAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, AKURDI,PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm's length price of the international transactions who proposed Nil adjustment. However, the Assessing Officer took Rs.1,64,17,30,653/- as variation with respect to the TP adjustment. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the draft assessment order determining the total income at Rs.338,51,08,520/- by making certain other

FAURECIA INDIA PVT.LTD,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD),,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -9,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

transfer pricing analysis and found following companies as comparables which are as under : Sr. Name of the Comparables PLI (OP/OC) % Turnover No. Rs. in Crore 1 Eclerx Services Ltd. 70.26 729.14 2 ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. 49.35 27.68 3 Tata Elxsi Ltd. (Software 31.39 682.7 Development & Services Seg.) 4 Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. 15.31 4.94 6. The assessee was show caused

ACIT CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Assessment Year : 2003-04 Acit, Circle- 1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad – 431201. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaecs3749M C.O. No.38/Pun/2011 (Arising Out Of Ita No.39/Pun/2011) Assessment Year : 2003-04 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (Saipl), A-1/1, Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Shendra, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaecs3749M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle- 1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Aurangabad. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Cross-Appeals Under Consideration. The Assessee Filed A Cross Objection Vide C.O. No.38/Pun/2011 For The Assessment Year

transfer pricing, the same should be restricted international transactions entered into with the Associated Enterprises and not on entity level. The assessee company submits that the additional grounds of cross objection raised are legal in nature and as all the facts are on record, the assessee requests for admission of the above grounds.” 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1455/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances

AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1455/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances

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

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

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

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

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

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

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

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

ASHA SHIVAJIRAO BHISE,LATUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

168/- in the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 31.07.2013. Based on the information about high value transaction carried out by the assessee during the year, valid notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued followed by issuing of other statutory notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. Ld.AO observed that assessee