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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

195,320 Financial expenses 295,495 1,628,366 Non-operating expenses 9,115 4,249 Total Cost (B) 33,147,910 22,815,200 Profit [C = (A-B)] 1,406,139 1,124,554 Profit/Cost [D=C/B] 4.24% 4.93% The PLI calculations approximates to the stated mark-up of 5% on assigned cost incurred

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

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

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

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

1,63,82,191/-. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the 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

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

195 from the amount paid to the foreign software suppliers. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT (IT) Vs. Sunray Computers (P) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 196 (Karn) by holding that the payment made for supply of software by L-Technologies, USA was Royalty and liable to be taxed in India u/s.9(1

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

GRUPO ANTOLIN IRAUSA S.A.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Groupo Antolin Irausa S.A. Vs. Ddit C/O. B-25, Midc, (International Taxation)-1, Ranjangaon, Shirur, Pune Pune 412 220 Pan : Aadcg9626L Appellant Respondent

price with the suppliers. Pages 264 to 267 are certain e-mail exchanges on Human resources by which the Indian entity was directed by the assessee to furnish particulars of certain employees and also expressing its displeasure over the Indian entity not 9 Grupo Antolin Irausa S.A. responding timely. Pages 268 and 269 are copies of e-mail exchanges between

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

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 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

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