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

45,12,630. Corporate Tax Grounds: Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, erred in reducing the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act by INR 1,95,31,01,681 by invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

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

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

45,46,03,985 94,92,109 44,51,11,876 2011-12 2012-13 12,92,72,186 5,99,91,658 6,92,80,528 54,08,126 6,38,72,402 2013-14 32,81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL

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

45,46,03,985 94,92,109 44,51,11,876 2011-12 2012-13 12,92,72,186 5,99,91,658 6,92,80,528 54,08,126 6,38,72,402 2013-14 32,81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL

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

45,46,03,985 94,92,109 44,51,11,876 2011-12 2012-13 12,92,72,186 5,99,91,658 6,92,80,528 54,08,126 6,38,72,402 2013-14 32,81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL

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

section 92CA makes it explicitly manifest that whereas under the earlier provision, the report of the TPO was not binding on the AO and he could compute the total income of the assessee by just having regard to the ALP determined by the TPO. If the AO was not satisfied with the TPO’s opinion on any point determined

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

section 92CA makes it explicitly manifest that whereas under the earlier provision, the report of the TPO was not binding on the AO and he could compute the total income of the assessee by just having regard to the ALP determined by the TPO. If the AO was not satisfied with the TPO’s opinion on any point determined

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

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

transfer pricing provisions and determine arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by assessee. Consequently, grounds of appeal No.3 to 6 raised by assessee are thus, allowed as indicated above. 44. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that in case grounds of appeal No.2 and 4 are allowed, then ground of appeal No.7 would become academic

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

transfer pricing provisions and determine arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by assessee. Consequently, grounds of appeal No.3 to 6 raised by assessee are thus, allowed as indicated above. 44. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that in case grounds of appeal No.2 and 4 are allowed, then ground of appeal No.7 would become academic

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

section 271(1)(c) without considering the fact that the transfer pricing adjustment is on account of difference of opinion pertaining to selection criteria adopted for identifying the comparable companies. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal

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

transfer pricing document furnished by the assessee and noted various international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its associated enterprises. The tabulated details of the same are placed under para 4 at page 2 of the draft assessment order. The total services rendered during the year were Rs.9.71 crores. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice under section

VENTURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

4. The order of the AO be restored and that of the Ld. CIT(A)-IT/TP be vacated on the issues. 6. First, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the first ground of appeal was against transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.9

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

4. The order of the AO be restored and that of the Ld. CIT(A)-IT/TP be vacated on the issues. 6. First, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the first ground of appeal was against transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.9

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

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 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