DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SAS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The value of international transactions of provision of software development services to associated enterprises was ₹ 48,29,13,194

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:

price, the question of the assessee deducting tax at source under Section 194-J of the Act does not arise, because the assessee is not making any payment to the stockist. Therefore, whatever be the margin made available to the stockist, so long as the assessee is not making any payment to the stockist, the question of invoking Section 194

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, cross objection filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-11(1), Pune अपीलाथ"/Appellant ….

194 ITR 548 (Bom.)] " CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [( 1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC)] " CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1998] 97 Taxman 7 (Karnataka)) " Indu Arts vs. ACIT ([2017] 88 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi - Trib.)) In the light of above judicial precedents, the Respondent humbly requests the Hon'ble bench to reject E- Infochips Limited from the final

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

B & R INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

194,660,775 as against the returned income of INR 98,697,530 reported by the Appellant, Grounds relating to transfer pricing matter 2. The learned TPO/AO erred, in law and in facts, by accepting the following company as comparable although this is functionally not comparable to the Appellant and without following due process for selection of comparable company thereby

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 :-

section 80IA(10) r.w.s. 10AA(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds no.2 to 9 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground no.10 relates to the addition on account of reconciliation of 14. receipts with the details mentioned in Form No.26AS. 15. Brief facts of this issue include that, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed a discrepancy

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

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

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on his decision in preceding AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case involving the identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price in respect of international transactions reported for the relevant assessment year. Then paragraph 4, along with its sub paragraphs 4.1 to 47 deal with disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the context of commission exceeding Re. 18.00 crore paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, even though