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

46,03,985 and then he reduced the amount of transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assessee under Column E at Rs.94,92,109 to work out the amount of total adjustment in the hands of OIE at Rs.44,51,11,876 for the A.Y. 2011-12 under Column F. It is this amount of the transfer

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

46,03,985 and then he reduced the amount of transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assessee under Column E at Rs.94,92,109 to work out the amount of total adjustment in the hands of OIE at Rs.44,51,11,876 for the A.Y. 2011-12 under Column F. It is this amount of the transfer

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

46. The ground of appeal No.9 is not pressed, hence the same is dismissed. 47. The issue in ground of appeal No.10 against charging of interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential, hence the same is dismissed. 48. The issue raised in additional ground of appeal No.11 is against transfer pricing

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

46. The ground of appeal No.9 is not pressed, hence the same is dismissed. 47. The issue in ground of appeal No.10 against charging of interest under section 234B of the Act is consequential, hence the same is dismissed. 48. The issue raised in additional ground of appeal No.11 is against transfer pricing

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value

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

46,13,160 30,42,10,447 8 Nalco Water India Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15. 13. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of assessee, economic analysis carried out discussion made above, Arm‟s Length Price of transactions as reported by the assessee company is altered and an adjustment of Rs. 32,61,52,919/- is made

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 92 otiose and the definition of 'international transaction' u/s 92B and rule 10B becoming redundant. This is patently an unacceptable proposition having no sanction under the Indian transfer pricing law. The requirement under the Indian law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard to its ALP and the same is required

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 92 otiose and the definition of 'international transaction' u/s 92B and rule 10B becoming redundant. This is patently an unacceptable proposition having no sanction under the Indian transfer pricing law. The requirement under the Indian law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard to its ALP and the same is required

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.14/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mercedes-Benz India Privatge The Acit, Circle-9, Pune. Limited, Vs E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, . Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal.Khed, Pune – 410 501. Pan: Aabcm 1786 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Darpan Kirpalani – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises Against The Acit, Circle-9, Pune’S Assessment Dated 07.11.2017 Framed In Furtherance To Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai “Drp”S Directions Dated 14.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.27, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W. S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 92C(3)/92CA(1) and hence, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The transfer pricing adjustment and the Transfer Pricing Order passed should be quashed as being bad in law or illegal or void ab initio. Ground No. 2 - General ground related to Transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.4,81,00,000 Erred

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

transfer pricing adjustment to the assessee’s total income determining the total loss of the assessee at Rs. 46,44,38,9701- as against the returned loss of Rs. 56,27,21,541/-. The AO has also proposed to initiate penalty proceedings under section

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 Proceedings, the TPO carried out fresh search of comparables using the same criteria as used by the assessee while bench marking the transaction. The TPO had not rejected any of the comparables selected by the assessee. However, the TPO had added certain comparables to the list of comparables on the ground that those comparables were functionally comparable

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Ground No.1 is general. The ld. AR did not press ground No.2 taken in the Memorandum of appeal. Ground No. 9 is premature. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed. 3. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

46,129\nTNMM\nsample\n11\nExpenditure Reimbursed Paid\n47,37,318\nCUP\n12\nGuarantee Commission Paid\n78,89,367\nOTHER\nMETHOD\nTotal\n63,99,95,093/-\n4. While the TPO accepted the various international transactions entered into\nby the assessee with its AEs, however, he did not agree with the ALP of the\ninternational transactions relating to Cost sharing charges

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 92C(2) of the Act not warranting any transfer pricing addition. We, therefore, order to delete the addition of Rs.26.87 crore and odd. 36. No other ground was pressed by the ld. AR. Such grounds, therefore, stand dismissed. A.Y. 2015-16 : 37. The only issue pressed in this appeal raised through Ground Nos. 1 to 6 and additional ground

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 92C(2) of the Act not warranting any transfer pricing addition. We, therefore, order to delete the addition of Rs.26.87 crore and odd. 36. No other ground was pressed by the ld. AR. Such grounds, therefore, stand dismissed. A.Y. 2015-16 : 37. The only issue pressed in this appeal raised through Ground Nos. 1 to 6 and additional ground

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

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and upheld by the DRP. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer. 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that additional evidence was filed before the DRP to support the arguments taken before the TPO and also in the TP study report. He pointed

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 632/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. Level 2A & Level 3, Tower-5, Cyber City, Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 Pan : Aaecs8099L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 619/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Tower-5, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013 Pan : Aaecs8099L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Anurag Srivastava

Section 251(1)(a) as amended w.e.f.01.06.2001. The Appellant prays that the order of the learned CIT(A) to the extent of remanding the matter be vacated and the direction should be granted to include the comparable on the basis of merits submitted before the learned CIT(A). The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend