DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

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

section 10A r.w.s. 80- IA(10) of the Act is not justified. The action of the Assessing Officer to restrict the deduction u/s 10A of the Act to Rs.7,74,60,281/- as against the claim of Rs.36,35,09,382/- is hereby set-aside. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect.” 8. Thus, in view of the above, ground

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computing arm's length price in respect of international transactions entered into by the assessee with its associated enterprises. The TPO vide order dated 10.10.2013 under section 92CA(3) of the Act accepted international transactions of assessee at ₹ 19,48,32,921/- with its associated enterprises to be at arm's length. The Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO. He, however, did not approve the view point of the AO that the entire amount of payment of Rs.5.86 crore was liable to be added by observing that no independent reasoning was given by the AO and the amount also included Testing fees paid to group concern amounting to Rs.40.85 lakh and Generic

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO. He, however, did not approve the view point of the AO that the entire amount of payment of Rs.5.86 crore was liable to be added by observing that no independent reasoning was given by the AO and the amount also included Testing fees paid to group concern amounting to Rs.40.85 lakh and Generic

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Carraro India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Pune B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1309/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Carraro India Private Pune Limited, B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Morey Date Of Hearing 14-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15-07-2021

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO. He, however, did not approve the view point of the AO that the entire amount of payment of Rs.5.86 crore was liable to be added by observing that no independent reasoning was given by the AO and the amount also included Testing fees paid to group concern amounting to Rs.40.85 lakh and Generic

M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Carraro India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Pune B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1309/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Carraro India Private Pune Limited, B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Morey Date Of Hearing 14-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15-07-2021

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO. He, however, did not approve the view point of the AO that the entire amount of payment of Rs.5.86 crore was liable to be added by observing that no independent reasoning was given by the AO and the amount also included Testing fees paid to group concern amounting to Rs.40.85 lakh and Generic

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE -1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Vs. Dcit, Range-1(1), Limited, Pune 407, City Tower Floor, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment. The AO, vide his order dated 14-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act observed that the assessee debited Software Maintenance charges at Rs.6.86 crore, which amount was about 400% higher in comparison with the preceding year, in which such Software charges stood at Rs.1.67 crore. The assessee was called upon

WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 92CA(1) of the Act. The assessee was engaged in the activity of manufacturing and marketing of measuring instruments such as pressure gauges, pressure transmitters, chemical seals, thermometers, temperature transmitters and components and tools for refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The assessee company associated enterprises. Majority of import of components of assessee company were from its parent company WIKA

DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 92CA(1) of the Act. The assessee was engaged in the activity of manufacturing and marketing of measuring instruments such as pressure gauges, pressure transmitters, chemical seals, thermometers, temperature transmitters and components and tools for refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The assessee company associated enterprises. Majority of import of components of assessee company were from its parent company WIKA

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

195 of the Act. It was requested that in case sum of ₹ 52,65,483/- was considered as income and corresponding TDS credit of ₹ 5,26,584/- be allowed to the assessee. Referring to the provisions of section 10(6A) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that in the case of assessee, TDS was deducted by the Indian concern

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13,, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing proceedings that the payments made to Vishay Singapore are in the nature of cost to cost allocation only. Further, it was explained that the assessee was not required to withhold tax at source in India to remittances on cost allocation and as such no TDS was deducted as it is not taxable in India

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

195 of the Act on account of payment of testing charges and development charges as the same constitutes “reimbursement”. Relying on the various decisions on this issue, the assessee argued before the CIT(A) saying that the testing charges goes subsumed in the product charges paid by the assessee. According to the assessee, reimbursement of expenditure of the non-resident

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

195 of the Act on account of payment of testing charges and development charges as the same constitutes “reimbursement”. Relying on the various decisions on this issue, the assessee argued before the CIT(A) saying that the testing charges goes subsumed in the product charges paid by the assessee. According to the assessee, reimbursement of expenditure of the non-resident

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

195 of the Act on account of payment of testing charges and development charges as the same constitutes “reimbursement”. Relying on the various decisions on this issue, the assessee argued before the CIT(A) saying that the testing charges goes subsumed in the product charges paid by the assessee. According to the assessee, reimbursement of expenditure of the non-resident