YAZAKI INDIA P LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAZAKI (I) LTD.,),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Ergo, we order to delete the addition of Rs.2,96,50,650/- made on this score. This ground is allowed. 10 Yazaki India Private Limited 9. The next issue concerns the transfer pricing addition made by the Assessing Officer. Facts apropos this issue are that the assessee furnished report in Form 3CEB indicating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

transfer pricing documentation has benchmarked the said intra-group services, by using the Transactional Net Margin Method; 3.5 appreciating the fact that the international transaction of management fees was considered at arm's length in this assessment proceeding for AY 2008-09. Thus the Ld. AO / TPO have not followed the 'Rule of Consistency'. 4. Others On the facts

M/S. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

transfer pricing documentation has benchmarked the said intra-group services, by using the Transactional Net Margin Method; 3.5 appreciating the fact that the international transaction of management fees was considered at arm's length in this assessment proceeding for AY 2008-09. Thus the Ld. AO / TPO have not followed the 'Rule of Consistency'. 4. Others On the facts

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

M/S. WALTER TOOLS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.2711/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Walter Tools India Private The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Vs Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 0102. Pan: Aaacw 4857 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Suresh Yadav - Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2022

section 92CA(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer for the computation of Arm’s Length Price in relation to the International Transactions, The TPO ITA No.2771/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 Walter Tools India Pvt. Ltd., (A) after enquiring into details of the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee with its associated

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

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed at pages

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

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed at pages

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

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed at pages

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

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed at pages

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

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed at pages

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

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed at pages

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

224 ITR 414(1997)(SC)]. 3.3.1 It is seen from the appellant's submission dtd 19.10.2023 and 10.11.2023 that the appellant has mentioned "Wing A, upper Ground floor, Tower VIII, Magarpatta City, SEZ, Hadapsar, Pune" as its address in the front page. Copy of the front page dtd 10.11.2023 is extracted as below: xxxxx Therefore it appears that the appellant

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

224 ITR 414(1997)(SC)]. 3.3.1 It is seen from the appellant's submission dtd 19.10.2023 and 10.11.2023 that the appellant has mentioned "Wing A, upper Ground floor, Tower VIII, Magarpatta City, SEZ, Hadapsar, Pune" as its address in the front page. Copy of the front page dtd 10.11.2023 is extracted as below: xxxxx Therefore it appears that the appellant

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD.(AS A SUCCESSOR TO COGNIZANT INDIA P. LTD. FORMERLY T SYSTEMS (I) P LTD.),PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.-7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

section 92CA of the Act have no application to the entity of the assessee as the 5 assessee is enjoying the exemption u/s 10A of the Act. During the course of proceedings before the ld. DRP, the Assessing Officer submitted remand report dated 23.08.2010 wherein the TPO rejected the 4 comparables out of 9 comparables identified

M/S. OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2520/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited. Pritech Park, Block-12, Unit-2, 5B & 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur, Marathahalli Ring Road, Bangalore-560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

224/- TNMM enabled services to AEs. 3 A.Y.2013-14 5.1 The assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to benchmark its international transactions with the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC). The assessee in its transfer pricing study report had determined PLI of the comparable companies using three years weighted average as at 10.45% as against that

NARENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 17(2) r.w.r. 3(7)(i) is not warranted. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Additional ground No. 2 raised by the assessee questioning the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.14,34,224/- in the hands of assessee on account

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

transfer of the asset.” 14. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee in the paper book reveals that the assessee has received advances by cheque in respect of those three flats as per agreement and the sale deeds were executed subsequently where the market price is more than the agreement value. Since the assessee has received a part