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

68,205/- without appreciating the fact the assessee itself in the comparable furnished in its transfer pricing report has shown 'Ordinary profit' to be of 13.84% (as observed by the AO in the assessment order) as against the net profit margin of 26.40% shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case

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

section 92C of the Act considers the entire 16 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 range of results where more than one result is obtained and there is no rule under the Indian transfer pricing legislation for a blanket rejection of loss making companies but however, the TPO noted that at the time of transfer pricing documentation, assessee applied

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

section 92C of the Act considers the entire 16 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 range of results where more than one result is obtained and there is no rule under the Indian transfer pricing legislation for a blanket rejection of loss making companies but however, the TPO noted that at the time of transfer pricing documentation, assessee applied

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

Section 92C(3). 3.14 The above principal was also ruled in the case of Nielson India Pvt Ltd. [TS-347-ITAT-2016-Mum], wherein the Tribunal held that TPO/DRP not justified in determining ALP at Nil on ground of furnishing of no documentary evidence despite furnishing of details of services as well as allocation of cost pertaining to these services

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

Section 92C(3). 3.14 The above principal was also ruled in the case of Nielson India Pvt Ltd. [TS-347-ITAT-2016-Mum], wherein the Tribunal held that TPO/DRP not justified in determining ALP at Nil on ground of furnishing of no documentary evidence despite furnishing of details of services as well as allocation of cost pertaining to these services

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

transferred or services provided in the international transaction”. 25. The CUP method stipulates that firstly, the price paid for services in a comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified. The Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., price in comparable uncontrolled transaction is then adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction. Such adjusted price

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

transferred or services provided in the international transaction”. 25. The CUP method stipulates that firstly, the price paid for services in a comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified. The Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., price in comparable uncontrolled transaction is then adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction. Such adjusted price

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

VENTURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and un-controlled transactions. out of FAR analysis to find the same. Moreover, the Assessee‟s submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine and find out the companies listed as comparables which are, in fact comparable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. VENTURA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and un-controlled transactions. out of FAR analysis to find the same. Moreover, the Assessee‟s submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine and find out the companies listed as comparables which are, in fact comparable

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

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 4,91,68,070 as proposed in the draft assessment order. 16. Non consideration of Tax deducted at source ('TDS') of INR 90,000 in the computation of tax liability Erred in facts in not considering the TDS amount of INR 90,000 while computing the tax liability of the Appellant and consequential1y error

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

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\n12\nGuarantee Commission Paid\n78,89,367\nOTHER\nMETHOD

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 has accepted the same in a mechanical manner. 22. We find the provisions of section 263 of the Act read as under: ―263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker and in the scrip of RFL through whom\nrespondent had made the said transaction and it was conclusively proved\nthat it was the said broker who had inflated the price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker and in the scrip of RFL through whom\nrespondent had made the said transaction and it was conclusively proved\nthat it was the said broker who had inflated the price

MTU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mtu India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 159/1, Tathawade, Circle-14, Pune Pune-Mumbai Highway, Pune – 411033 Pan : Aabcd2233N Appellant Respondent

68,375/. The assessee remained unsuccessful before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The AO in the final assessment order 5 MTU India Private Limited made the transfer pricing addition to the above extent, against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee under

ASSISTANT 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 is not expected to be made by deducing from the difference between the 'excessive' AMP expenditure incurred by the Assessee and the AMP expenditure of a comparable entity that an international transaction exists and then proceeding to make the adjustment of the difference in order to determine the value of such AMP expenditure incurred