DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.‖ 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

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 Officer) on relying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the 2 case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 58 Taxmann.com 254" however, the facts of the case are not identical. Hence, the same should be treated as international transaction and should be; added to the total income of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.‖ 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

50. Clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act talks about income by way of royalty payable the Government; or (b) a person who is a resident; or (c) a person who is a non-resident. The proviso lays down that the provisions of clause (vi) would not apply if the payment was made in pursuance to an agreement

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

50. Clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act talks about income by way of royalty payable the Government; or (b) a person who is a resident; or (c) a person who is a non-resident. The proviso lays down that the provisions of clause (vi) would not apply if the payment was made in pursuance to an agreement

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

50. Clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act talks about income by way of royalty payable the Government; or (b) a person who is a resident; or (c) a person who is a non-resident. The proviso lays down that the provisions of clause (vi) would not apply if the payment was made in pursuance to an agreement

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

50. Clause (vi) of section 9(1) of the Act talks about income by way of royalty payable the Government; or (b) a person who is a resident; or (c) a person who is a non-resident. The proviso lays down that the provisions of clause (vi) would not apply if the payment was made in pursuance to an agreement

M/S. A B KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ab Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aarfa5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.‖ 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. HALLIBURTON TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Invoking Section 80La( 10) , Of The Act When Bare Reading Of The Provision Does Not Impose Such Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance On A.O.? 3. Whether On The Facts, Circumstances Of The Case And- In Law, Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Interpreting The Words According To The Object Of The Provision Ignoring The Fundamental Principle Of Interpretation Of Stature That Nothing Should Be Added To The Words Used By Legislature? 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Imposing Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance Ignoring The Fact That Section 80Ia(10) Of The Act Is A “Domestic Transfer Pricing” Provision & Proving Tax Avoidance Is Not One

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 14 Halliburton Technology .Y. 2011-12 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the 9 ITA Nos.584 & 620/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2005-06 Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the 9 ITA Nos.584 & 620/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2005-06 Assessing

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

50,795 from the eligible profits of the assessee under section 10A. The said adjustment made by the assessing authority in computing the deduction under section 10A is accordingly, deleted.” 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether