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

47,12,60,845 1,66,56,860 45,46,03,985 94,92,109 44,51,11,876 2011

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

47,12,60,845 1,66,56,860 45,46,03,985 94,92,109 44,51,11,876 2011

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

47,12,60,845 1,66,56,860 45,46,03,985 94,92,109 44,51,11,876 2011

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

47 – 48 of paper book) Cost + 5% China  Perform Sarbanes Oxley validation on behalf of the management of the local entities within Asia Pacific region;  Perform internal audits for in-scope locations based on analysis of location, annual turnover, risk factor and past audit issues;  Special audit/review;  Closing balance sheet review or opening balance sheet review; and  Provide accounting assistance

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

47 – 48 of paper book) Cost + 5% China  Perform Sarbanes Oxley validation on behalf of the management of the local entities within Asia Pacific region;  Perform internal audits for in-scope locations based on analysis of location, annual turnover, risk factor and past audit issues;  Special audit/review;  Closing balance sheet review or opening balance sheet review; and  Provide accounting assistance

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

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

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.,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIR.9,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2006-07. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in including the expenditure disallowed during the assessment proceedings of AY 2006-07 while computing the operating margin of the Appellant for AY 2006-07 for application of TNMM

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz 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 – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be allowed to the Appellant while carrying out transfer pricing adjustments in AY 2006-07. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in including the expenditure disallowed during the assessment proceedings of AY 2006-07 while computing the operating margin of the Appellant for AY 2006-07 for application of TNMM

MINDA RINDER PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Minda Rinder Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle-10, Gat No.148, Mahalunge Ingale, Pune Off. Chakan Talegaon Road, Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune – 410501 Maharashtra Pan : Aaach4211R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Pallavi Dinodia Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra Date Of Hearing 15-02-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 16-02-2021 आदेश / Order

47,390/- has been shown as “Design Charges” (Intangible Assets). This figure of Rs.10.88 crore in the Notes to Financial statements matches with the figure of international transaction of Design and Product Development Charges. However, it is not clear as to whether or not the value of international transaction of Rs.10.88 crore 6 Minda Rinder Private Limited is a part

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

transfer pricing adjustments has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc and not due to concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the learned Assessing Officer also erred in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant in respect of voluntary adjustment made to the total income. 19. Initiation of penalty

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

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

47,883\nRPM\n6\nPurchase of Raw material\n5,68,30,646\nTNMM\n7\nPurchase of Fixed Assets\n13,92,23,545\nTNMM\n8\nPayment towards consultancy and\n0\nNA\nprofessional services\n9\nPayment towards technical\n11,80,799\nTNMM\nservices\n10\nPurchase of Stores, spares and\n81,46,129\nTNMM\nsample\n11\nExpenditure Reimbursed Paid\n47,37,318\nCUP

SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO noted the business profile of assessee, wherein the assessee was subsidiary of N.V. Bekaert S.A. Belgium. Bekaert Group, headquartered in Belgium was the largest independent multinational manufacturer of wire, wire products and steel cord. The assessee had entered into various international transactions during the year which

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 adjustment suggested in the Draft Assessment Order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Assessee for the first time, before the DRP pleaded that Assessee Company is eligible for a deduction under section 80IAB of the Act on Income from Other Sources amounting to Rs.57,03,058/- and Short Term Capital Gains amounting to Rs.2,57,47