DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

2 and Explanation 4 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s in the case of Synopsis International Old Ltd. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 162 and Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (2011) 16 Taxmann.com

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

24,82,966/- X 11.47%) 13. In view of the discussion as above, the arm’s length price of the assessee of its international transaction is not being disturbed except provision of Design Engineering Services to the extent of Rs.4,15,76,796/-.” Thus, the TPO quantified the TP adjustment on account of provision of Design Engineering Services

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

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

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

24 would, therefore, include repeals by express omission. The absence of any reference to Section 6-A, therefore, again undoes the binding effect of these two judgments on an application of the ‘per incuriam’ principle.”[Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs CIT, (2015) 10 SCC 333 at p. 355] 3.7 It is to humbly submit that, the same two-Judge Bench

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

vi) Reimbursements. The assessee applied TNMM to benchmark the transactions at entity level as the most appropriate method. The assessee selected operating profit/sales (OP/Sales) as the profit level indicator (PLI). During the Financial Year 2007-08 the assessee earned margin (OP/Sales) of 15.78% vis-à-vis margin of 2.15% of the comparable companies. The international transactions of the assessee were

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

vi) Reimbursements. The assessee applied TNMM to benchmark the transactions at entity level as the most appropriate method. The assessee selected operating profit/sales (OP/Sales) as the profit level indicator (PLI). During the Financial Year 2007-08 the assessee earned margin (OP/Sales) of 15.78% vis-à-vis margin of 2.15% of the comparable companies. The international transactions of the assessee were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

vi. Disallowance of Remuneration to partners Rs.17,50,000/-. vii. Disallowance of interest paid to partners Rs.38,61,612/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apart from making GP addition of Rs.5

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

vi. Disallowance of Remuneration to partners Rs.17,50,000/-. vii. Disallowance of interest paid to partners Rs.38,61,612/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apart from making GP addition of Rs.5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

vi) As regards, the disallowance of claim for exemption of income u/s 10AA of the Act in respect of deemed exports to UNICEF, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the benefit of exemption u/s 10AA considering the fact that the deemed exports are also eligible for exemption u/s 10AA following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal (Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

section 92A of the Act as neither the Appellant nor any of the group entities participate in the capital or management of the third party vendors from whom raw material had been purchased during the year under consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the evidence, furnished by the Appellant, on the basis that