DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 6. The AO passed the assessment order uls 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 17.04.2015 (Received by assessee on 07.05.2015). Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the Assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.06.2015. In respect of transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VISTEON ENGG. CENTER (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

192 (Part), Sub Plot No. B, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri Waghere, Pune-411018 PAN : AACCT2585N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Visteon Engineering Center (India) Private Limited

VISTEON ENGINEERING CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

192 (Part), Sub Plot No. B, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri Waghere, Pune-411018 PAN : AACCT2585N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Visteon Engineering Center (India) Private Limited

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer-TPO under section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer-TPO under section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Price (ALP) of international transaction of software services by adopting a mark-up of 31.93% over costs instead of the appellant's earned mark up of 9.46% on cost. 6. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in not granting appropriate working capital adjustment to the appellant. 7. The AO, TPO & DRP erred in law and on facts

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Price (ALP) of international transaction of software services by adopting a mark-up of 31.93% over costs instead of the appellant's earned mark up of 9.46% on cost. 6. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in not granting appropriate working capital adjustment to the appellant. 7. The AO, TPO & DRP erred in law and on facts

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Price (ALP) of international transaction of software services by adopting a mark-up of 31.93% over costs instead of the appellant's earned mark up of 9.46% on cost. 6. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in not granting appropriate working capital adjustment to the appellant. 7. The AO, TPO & DRP erred in law and on facts

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

Transfer pricing regulations. Before us, Revenue has neither brought any material on record to controvert the findings of Ld.CIT(A) nor has placed on record any contrary binding decision. Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate as to how the decisions relied upon by the Ld AR are not applicable to the present facts. We further

AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment.” In respect of levy of penalty on disallowance of warranty provision, the Assessing Officer observed : “5.8 ……….It is held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. explanation-1 of the Act only with a view to avoid tax and has committed default in view of provisions

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 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

transferred its land to Namrata Reality in 2013 whereas, the Inspector had visited on 07.09.2015 and also called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer on entries in 7/12 extracts. The ld. CIT(A) considering the remand report, and taking into consideration the following facts that :- (i) The Assessing Officer has not made any adverse comments on the factual

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had\nalso issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and\nbills were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had\nalso issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and\nbills were

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

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred to amendment of section 32 by the Finance Act, 1998 which