VENTURA INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP-2)2, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 234B of the Act, as applicable, on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 7,90,08,000. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend one or more of the above Grounds of Appeal at any time before

M/S. MAN TRUCKS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO vide order under section 92CA(3) of the Act made an adjustment of Rs.42,99,42,818/- to the arm's length price in respect of international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises as under:- “a) Rs.41,66,47,000/- in respect of international transactions relating to Manufacturing, imports, exports and knowhow

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO vide order under section 92CA(3) of the Act made an adjustment of Rs.42,99,42,818/- to the arm's length price in respect of international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises as under:- “a) Rs.41,66,47,000/- in respect of international transactions relating to Manufacturing, imports, exports and knowhow

VEGA INDIA LEVEL AND PRESSURE MEASUREMENT P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Pithily put, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of Grieshaber Verwaltungsgeselleshaft GmBH, Germany. It is engaged in Assembly, Trading, Field commissioning, Repairing and Provision 2 Vega India Level

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

transfer pricing provisions. The Ld. AR stressed that whether wholly and completely the control was in India was the ‘status’ of assessee, which could be under section 6 of the Act and not by the TPO under the TP provisions. He pointed out that the TPO has time and again referred to the evidences collected by investigation wing and also

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

transfer pricing provisions. The Ld. AR stressed that whether wholly and completely the control was in India was the ‘status’ of assessee, which could be under section 6 of the Act and not by the TPO under the TP provisions. He pointed out that the TPO has time and again referred to the evidences collected by investigation wing and also

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

transfer pricing provisions. The Ld. AR stressed that whether wholly and completely the control was in India was the ‘status’ of assessee, which could be under section 6 of the Act and not by the TPO under the TP provisions. He pointed out that the TPO has time and again referred to the evidences collected by investigation wing and also

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

transfer pricing provisions. The Ld. AR stressed that whether wholly and completely the control was in India was the ‘status’ of assessee, which could be under section 6 of the Act and not by the TPO under the TP provisions. He pointed out that the TPO has time and again referred to the evidences collected by investigation wing and also

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

transfer pricing provisions. The Ld. AR stressed that whether wholly and completely the control was in India was the ‘status’ of assessee, which could be under section 6 of the Act and not by the TPO under the TP provisions. He pointed out that the TPO has time and again referred to the evidences collected by investigation wing and also

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

transfer pricing provisions. The Ld. AR stressed that whether wholly and completely the control was in India was the ‘status’ of assessee, which could be under section 6 of the Act and not by the TPO under the TP provisions. He pointed out that the TPO has time and again referred to the evidences collected by investigation wing and also

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO observed that the assessee had\nentered into various international transactions with its AEs. He observed that the\nassessee company has adopted TNMM Method for benchmarking the international\ntransaction of export of traded spares to the AEs. Further, the assessee company\nhas selected 6 companies as comparable for trading activity. From the submissions\nfiled

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Acit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea Amar Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Referring To The Grounds Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Grounds No.1, 14, 15 & 17 To 19 Are Required To Be Dismissed As They Are Of Either Consequential Or Premature Or General In Nature. Accordingly, They Are Dismissed. Therefore, The Rest Of Grounds No.2 To 13 & 16 Are Extracted Hereunder :-

Transfer Pricing adjustments under Chapter X of the Act in respect of international transactions 11. erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has signed an Advance Pricing Agreement (‘APA’) (including rollback) with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) with AY 2013-14 being covered under the rollback provisions and disallowing the amount paid in respect of managerial

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

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

190/- 3 after claiming exemption under the provisions of section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act at total income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

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

190/- 3 after claiming exemption under the provisions of section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act at total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

190/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. From the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received certain amounts from Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (SAIPL) and Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. and Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had received royalty in consideration under Technology

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 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

190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains the property rights in design, secret formula, etc. and allows use of such rights, consideration received from such user was in the nature of ‘royalty’ and where there was an outright sale or purchase, the consideration was for transfer of such design, secret formula and could