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

Transfer Pricing proceedings. The TPO introduced couple of comparables namely, Jeevan Softech (Segment) and BNR Udyog Ltd. for benchmarking the international transactions. However, assessee contends that they needs to be rejected as they cannot pass FAR test. In this regard, assessee filed written submissions giving arguments of DRP/TPO/AO as well as the contentions of the assessee. The same are extracted

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

price by passing necessary journal entries. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee. He noted that the assessee firm and the sister concern has purchased the lands for business purpose. However, as no business was carried on in these lands, the same was transferred to the partners which amounts to a transfer resulting

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

Section 92C(2) of the Act provides that most appropriate method referred to in sub-clause (1) shall be applied for determining arm's length price, in the manner as may be prescribed. For this, we have to look to the Rules framed by the Legislature. Rule 10A(ab) of the Rules defines uncontrolled transaction to mean a transaction between

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

Section 92C(2) of the Act provides that most appropriate method referred to in sub-clause (1) shall be applied for determining arm's length price, in the manner as may be prescribed. For this, we have to look to the Rules framed by the Legislature. Rule 10A(ab) of the Rules defines uncontrolled transaction to mean a transaction between

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

price at Rs.47,97,557/- has made substantial payment of Rs.34,56,438/- before 31.03.2013 and merely the registration was not done, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. 9 12. I find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The contents of the allotment letter dated

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts that transfer pricing adjustment to the international transactions of the Appellant and corporate tax adjustment made is on account of difference of opinion as to application of selection criterion for selection of comparable companies, incoherent approach, interpretation of the provisions, interpretation of case laws etc. IV Additional ground

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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

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

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

2% both for use of technical knowhow and brand name ; and Rs.75,41,558/- pursuant to the agreement dated 01-07-2008 for use of name and logo of its foreign/associated enterprise @ 0.5%. On a reference made by the AO, the TPO determined Nil ALP in respect of Royalty payment of Rs.75.41 lakh pursuant to agreement dated

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

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

2% both for use of technical knowhow and brand name ; and Rs.75,41,558/- pursuant to the agreement dated 01-07-2008 for use of name and logo of its foreign/associated enterprise @ 0.5%. On a reference made by the AO, the TPO determined Nil ALP in respect of Royalty payment of Rs.75.41 lakh pursuant to agreement dated

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

2) of the Act of adopting as arm’s length price, a price which varies by not more than 5 per cent from the arm’s length price. II. Grounds of objections in respect of disallowances/ additions other than transfer pricing adjustment 14. Disallowance of Incremental provision for warranty of Rs.10,198,196/- : Erred in disallowing the incremental provision

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

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 10. The ld. AR submitted that the primary grounds raised by the assessee in appeal is against transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transactions pertaining to payments made to Associated Enterprises (AEs) for Corporate Support Services. The authorities below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not received

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 10. The ld. AR submitted that the primary grounds raised by the assessee in appeal is against transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transactions pertaining to payments made to Associated Enterprises (AEs) for Corporate Support Services. The authorities below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not received

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 10. The ld. AR submitted that the primary grounds raised by the assessee in appeal is against transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transactions pertaining to payments made to Associated Enterprises (AEs) for Corporate Support Services. The authorities below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not received

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Act.” 10. The ld. AR submitted that the primary grounds raised by the assessee in appeal is against transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transactions pertaining to payments made to Associated Enterprises (AEs) for Corporate Support Services. The authorities below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not received

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. VENTURA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

transfer pricing study report but were subsequently, identified to be not functionally comparable. The assessee by way of ground of appeal No.4 is aggrieved by the selection criteria applied by the TPO. The assessee is also aggrieved by the directions to the TPO to compute operating margins of comparable companies using Safe Harbor Rules. By way of ground of appeal