M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Transfer Pricing related grounds Ground No. 2: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in making a TP 2 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] adjustment of INR 27,05,17,208 to the income of the Appellant, by holding that the Appellant

KNORR-BREMSE TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-14,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16

274 read with section 271 (1)( c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income on account of transfer pricing

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustments ought not be made to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 7. Non grant of deduction under section 80-IAB on income from other sources and capital gains earned during the subject year The Hon’ble. DRP / NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in not granting a deduction under section

BEKAERT INDUSTRIES P. LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2376/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Bekaert Industries Pvt. Ltd., Amar Paradigm, Near D Mart, S.No.110/11/3, Baner Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Baner, Pune - 411045 …. Pan: Aaacb8571E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

274 by rejecting the benchmarking analysis conducted by the appellant for its international transaction of export of packing material. The Appellant prays that the book value of the said transactions be held to be the arm's length price of the transactions, and the additions made by the AO be deleted. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

274 of the Act read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price

MAGNA STEYR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) while determining the arm's length price in respect of the appellant's international transactions; with regard to provision of engineering design services. 4. The AO/DRP/TPO erred in rejecting CUP as the most appropriate method (MAM) to determine the arm's length price of the international transactions pertaining to provision of engineering design services

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA STEYR INDIA P. LTD.,, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) while determining the arm's length price in respect of the appellant's international transactions; with regard to provision of engineering design services. 4. The AO/DRP/TPO erred in rejecting CUP as the most appropriate method (MAM) to determine the arm's length price of the international transactions pertaining to provision of engineering design services

YAZAKI (I) P LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA YAZAKI AUTOCOMP LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.163/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the said draft assessment order, thereby not following the mandate as laid down under section 144C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

transfer pricing (‘TP’) adjustment of INR 75,00,000 to the income of the Appellant, by holding that the Appellant’s international transactions pertaining to interest on External Commercial Borrowing (‘ECB’) is not at arm’s length. Further, the Ld. DRP/Ld. ACIT/Ld. TPO while making adjustment on account of interest on ECB Loan erred in: a) Rejecting the benchmarking analysis

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.468/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Rieter India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.768/2, Village Wing, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Taluka – Khandala, Satara, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Pune – 412801 …. Pan: Aaacr3556P Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 5, Pune

274 of the Act read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.468/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Rieter India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.768/2, Village Wing, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Taluka – Khandala, Satara, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Pune – 412801 …. Pan: Aaacr3556P Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 5, Pune

274 of the Act read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AMBER POINT TECHNOLOGY INDIA P. LTD.,,

In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years are partly allowed and appeals of Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and in assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

Price of the international transactions of the Appellant. (f) That the learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceeding and issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the charging of interest under section 234B and 2340 of the Act. ITA Nos.761 & 762/PUN/2014

M/S. AMBERPOINT TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years are partly allowed and appeals of Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and in assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

Price of the international transactions of the Appellant. (f) That the learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceeding and issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the charging of interest under section 234B and 2340 of the Act. ITA Nos.761 & 762/PUN/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AMBER POINT TECHNOLOGY INDIA P. LTD.,,

In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years are partly allowed and appeals of Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and in assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

Price of the international transactions of the Appellant. (f) That the learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceeding and issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the charging of interest under section 234B and 2340 of the Act. ITA Nos.761 & 762/PUN/2014

M/S. AMBERPOINT TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years are partly allowed and appeals of Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and in assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

Price of the international transactions of the Appellant. (f) That the learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceeding and issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the charging of interest under section 234B and 2340 of the Act. ITA Nos.761 & 762/PUN/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the 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.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

transfer pricing order along with other offers. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2013. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us has placed copy of demand notice issued in Form No.7 and also notice issued under section 274

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the 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.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

transfer pricing order along with other offers. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2013. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us has placed copy of demand notice issued in Form No.7 and also notice issued under section 274

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Pricing Officer (TPO). On due consideration of\nsubmissions filed by the assessee, Ld.TPO vide order dated\n29/07/2021 passed an order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act\nproposing TP adjustment of Rs.12,70,86,646/-. Ld.AO along\nwith TP adjustments also, proposed various other additions\namounting to Rs.68,14,79,984/- and passed a draft\nassessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) r.w.s.144B

SANDVIK ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, 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 आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.607/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 10, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Highway, Dapodi, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune - 411012 Pan: Aaccs6638K

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act and the TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 29.01.2013, wherein he proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 56,12,71,932/- in respect of distribution segment, ₹ 12,42,71,340/- in respect of Management service fees payment and ₹ 39,72,50,242/-, totaled