EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, 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

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(10) of the Act, alleging that the Appellant earned more than ‘ordinary profits’ from

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

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(10) of the Act, alleging that the Appellant earned more than ‘ordinary profits’ from

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.

6. The Ld.CIT(A) is erred in holding that payments made by the assessee cannot be treated as royalty under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the payment made by the Assessee are on account of Royalty in view of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4 of Section

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.

6. The Ld.CIT(A) is erred in holding that payments made by the assessee cannot be treated as royalty under the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the payment made by the Assessee are on account of Royalty in view of Explanation 2 and Explanation 4 of Section

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

section 80IA(10) of the Act is a “domestic transfer pricing” provision and proving tax avoidance is not one 2 Halliburton Technology .Y. 2011-12 of the pre-condition for invoking transfer pricing provisions? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in concluding that net profit

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

2), as increased by the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10 (other than the provisions contained in clause 38 thereof) of section 11 or section 12 apply" and in this case the disallowance is made u/s 14A which is always part of the expenses specifically debited to the profit and loss account

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer price as available under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. B. Grounds related to corporate tax adjustments Ground No. 16 - Disallowance of Royalty expenditure Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case in disallowing the royalty expenditure of Rs 12,51,11,887 as capital expenditure for AY 2012-13. Ground No. 17 - Disallowance

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

2 Without prejudice to 1 above, assuming that provisions of section 80-IA(8) r.w.s. 10AA(9) do apply, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that deduction allowable u/s 10AA was to be computed as contemplated in the manner specified in section

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

2. Non applicability of transfer pricing provisions to unit of the Appellant which is enjoying tax holiday under section 10A of the Act Erred in applying transfer pricing provisions to the unit of the Appellant which enjoys tax holiday under section 10A of the Act. 3. Non consideration of contemporaneous nature of data Erred in conducting arm's length analysis

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

2) of the Act. The case of CIT(A) is that the deduction u/s. 10A is to be restricted to the extent of ordinary profit earned by the assessee be that of comparable companies by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act. 7. The assessee submitted that the provisions of section

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

2) of the Act. The case of CIT(A) is that the deduction u/s. 10A is to be restricted to the extent of ordinary profit earned by the assessee be that of comparable companies by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act. 7. The assessee submitted that the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under the provisions of section 92CA(1) of the Act in order to determine the Arm‟s Length Price (“ALP”) in respect of such international transactions. 2.2 The assessee undertook the following international transactions with its AEs during AY 2013-14 and benchmarked each transaction by selecting the Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) mentioned in the table

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

2) of the Act. The case of CIT(A) is that the deduction u/s. 10A is to be restricted to the extent of ordinary profit earned by the assessee be that of comparable companies by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act. 7. The assessee submitted that the provisions of section

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

2) of the Act. The case of CIT(A) is that the deduction u/s. 10A is to be restricted to the extent of ordinary profit earned by the assessee be that of comparable companies by invoking the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act. 7. The assessee submitted that the provisions of section

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 regulations and warranted adjustment. In the trading of spares, the assessee had generated gross margin of 25.42% and total sales of CBUs were ₹ 18,17,48,020/-. The TPO thus, proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 2,56,10,076/- to arm's length price of international transaction towards import of CBUs. 14. The next aspect was payment

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 regulations and warranted adjustment. In the trading of spares, the assessee had generated gross margin of 25.42% and total sales of CBUs were ₹ 18,17,48,020/-. The TPO thus, proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 2,56,10,076/- to arm's length price of international transaction towards import of CBUs. 14. The next aspect was payment

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on 18/09/2017 for determination of Arm’s length Price of Specified Domestic Transactions. The TPO passed the order on 30/10/2018 suggesting adjustment of Rs.4 crores. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Dispute resolution Panel (DRP). The Assessee had taken a legal ground of jurisdiction of the TPO before the DRP. The Assessee relied

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per grounds of appeal on record. 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of automation and control being categorized into following three business activities: i) System Integration Segment (includes operations carried by the EHTP unit

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per grounds of appeal on record. 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of automation and control being categorized into following three business activities: i) System Integration Segment (includes operations carried by the EHTP unit