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

transfer pricing (TP) adjustments were deleted on the grounds that the prescribed TP method had not been appropriately applied.:- M/s. Sulzer Tech India Pvt. Ltd (ITA 633/MUM/2021)- 21. Further, the lower authorities claimed to have adopted 'other method by applying need, benefit and evidence test for considering the arm's length price of this transaction

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

2) of the Act, assessee had attended the office of the TPO from time to time and filed details as requisitioned by the TPO which were placed on records. The TPO had examined the details filed by assessee and based on such examination, he held in his order that the pricing of the aforesaid agreements was 17 ITA Nos.529/K/2008

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

71,86,985 4,55,81,486 27,16,05,499 0 27,16,05,499 2010-11 8,54,

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

71,86,985 4,55,81,486 27,16,05,499 0 27,16,05,499 2010-11 8,54,

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

71,86,985 4,55,81,486 27,16,05,499 0 27,16,05,499 2010-11 8,54,

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee commission of Rs.91,03,879/-. The factual matrix of the issue is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the respondent-assessee had provided corporate guarantee for borrowing made by its foreign subsidiaries. Further, it had not charged any corporate guarantee commission. The respondent-assessee

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

71,37,437 TNMM to MSC US 3 Payment of management fees and 2,75,63,487 Cost Allocation communication expenses Arrangement 4 Reimbursement of expenses 2,56,27,582 Reimbursement of incurred by AEs on behalf of MSC expenses India 5 Recovery of expenses incurred by 1,37,76,456 Reimbursement of MSC India on behalf of AEs expenses

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

2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

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

71,987/-, out of which the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.42,60,057/- on the ground that the provision has not been created on scientific and systematic basis. The ld. AR has submitted that in the earlier assessment years and in the subsequent assessment years the provision for warranty made by assessee has not been disturbed. years including the assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

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

71,987/-, out of which the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.42,60,057/- on the ground that the provision has not been created on scientific and systematic basis. The ld. AR has submitted that in the earlier assessment years and in the subsequent assessment years the provision for warranty made by assessee has not been disturbed. years including the assessment year

EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

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

71,987/-, out of which the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.42,60,057/- on the ground that the provision has not been created on scientific and systematic basis. The ld. AR has submitted that in the earlier assessment years and in the subsequent assessment years the provision for warranty made by assessee has not been disturbed. years including the assessment year

EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed being devoid of any merit

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

71,987/-, out of which the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.42,60,057/- on the ground that the provision has not been created on scientific and systematic basis. The ld. AR has submitted that in the earlier assessment years and in the subsequent assessment years the provision for warranty made by assessee has not been disturbed. years including the assessment year

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

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Midc, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computing arm's length price in relation to international transactions. The TPO noted that the assessee was subsidiary of Eaton Asia International Ltd., which in turn, was subsidiary of Eaton Corporation. The assessee was primarily engaged in providing customer support services and business support services to Eaton Corporation, USA. The said concern Eaton Corporation

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

2) of the Act. 14 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned AO erred in and the Honourable DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of initiating penalty proceeding under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

2) is the eligible international transaction of `Provision of software development services’ and the safe harbour, requiring acceptance of the declared transaction value, has been prescribed as the operating profit margin of not less than 20% of operating expenses. Explanation to section 92CB of the Act itself provides 5 Dana India Private Limited the meaning of "safe harbour

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

section, "assessed tax" means the tax on the total income determined under s. 143(1) or on regular assessment under s. 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account