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 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 adjustment to be limited to international transactions with associated enterprises only. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee also stated that the said ground of appeal would become academic if ground of appeal No.4

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Revenue in its appeal is aggrieved by the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to treat the entire amount of royalty as a revenue expense as against capital expenditure taken by the AO. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Indian company

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Revenue in its appeal is aggrieved by the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to treat the entire amount of royalty as a revenue expense as against capital expenditure taken by the AO. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an Indian company

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

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- 15 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order of the Ld. AO in so far as the transfer pricing addition is concerned, is bad in law as he failed

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

section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 6. The AO passed the assessment order uls 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 17.04.2015 (Received by assessee on 07.05.2015). Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the Assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.06.2015. In respect of transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses

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

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

49,658. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in making an upward Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 1,23,36,988 in respect of the international transactions relating to payments made to Associated Enterprises ('AE') for corporate support services, alleging that the same

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

49,658. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in making an upward Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 1,23,36,988 in respect of the international transactions relating to payments made to Associated Enterprises ('AE') for corporate support services, alleging that the same

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

49,658. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in making an upward Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 1,23,36,988 in respect of the international transactions relating to payments made to Associated Enterprises ('AE') for corporate support services, alleging that the same

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

49,658. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in making an upward Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 1,23,36,988 in respect of the international transactions relating to payments made to Associated Enterprises ('AE') for corporate support services, alleging that the same

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

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Midc, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

section 154 of the Act. 9. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee was general in nature. With regard to issue in ground of appeal No.2, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,28,30,770/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued notice u/s.143(2) dated 11/09/2017. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order

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

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

transfer pricing addition on this count, in the prevailing facts is, ergo, not allowed. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., 30. Having seen that neither the ALP determination of the assessee nor the Revenue is as per law, the next thing is to find out if the payment by the assessee in respect of regional services

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

transfer pricing addition on this count, in the prevailing facts is, ergo, not allowed. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., 30. Having seen that neither the ALP determination of the assessee nor the Revenue is as per law, the next thing is to find out if the payment by the assessee in respect of regional services

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of transaction of import of raw material of Rs.21,38,49,458/, the objection raised before the DRP is that the TPO was not justified in using TNMM as most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of import of raw materials as against CUP method used by the assessee. It was further

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of transaction of import of raw material of Rs.21,38,49,458/, the objection raised before the DRP is that the TPO was not justified in using TNMM as most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of import of raw materials as against CUP method used by the assessee. It was further