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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— b) resale price method, by which,— (i) the price at which property purchased or services obtained by the enterprise from an associated enterprise is resold or are provided

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

81,136/- after incorporating the above referred adjustments of Rs.4,15,76,796/-. Thus, the TPO rejected 3 out of 8 original set of comparables as well as the other 5 additional comparables introduced for the first time during the Transfer Pricing proceedings. Further, AO did not grant working capital adjustment too. 6. Further, regarding the non-TP issues

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

81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL 1,52,51,54,021 20,75,00,929 1,31,76,53,092 6,15,98,483 1,25,60,54,609 6. Through this table, he found out the amount of year-wise transfer pricing adjustment

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

81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL 1,52,51,54,021 20,75,00,929 1,31,76,53,092 6,15,98,483 1,25,60,54,609 6. Through this table, he found out the amount of year-wise transfer pricing adjustment

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

81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL 1,52,51,54,021 20,75,00,929 1,31,76,53,092 6,15,98,483 1,25,60,54,609 6. Through this table, he found out the amount of year-wise transfer pricing adjustment

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

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

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

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, Ground No‟s

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviphysical Court Of Hearing आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2018 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sas Research & Development The Asst. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Vs Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. Level1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411 0103 Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Ss Viswanethra Ravi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune Dated 31.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Inappropriate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Even Though The Pricing Of All International Transactions Of The Appellant Was At Arm’S Length Erred On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law By Making/Confirming Transfer Pricing Adjustment By Rejecting The Analysis Undertaken By The Appellant To Determine Arm‟S Length Price Of Its International Transactions Pertaining To Rendering Of Software Development Support, Consultancy & Training Services To The Aes. 2. Inappropriate Rejection Of The Transfer Pricing Documentation Appropriately Maintained By The Appellant Erred On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law By Inappropriately Rejecting The Transfer Pricing Documentation Appropriately Maintained By The Appellant & By Inappropriately Conducting A Fresh Search For Benchmarking The Appellant‟S International Transactions.

Transfer Pricing Guidelines provide fundamental principle that the adjustment made should be reasonably accurate. None of the workings on the risk adjustment can be considered reasonably accurate. The assessee has requested for risk adjustment. This issue is also considered. “Thus, there is no unanimity on the issue of granting risk adjustment, leave alone prescribing of sound methodology to grant risk

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised two additional grounds, which read as under: Ground of appeal 8 – Following incorrect methodology for computing capacity utilization adjustment The learned AO erred in granting capacity utilization adjustment by considering only depreciation

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised two additional grounds, which read as under: Ground of appeal 8 – Following incorrect methodology for computing capacity utilization adjustment The learned AO erred in granting capacity utilization adjustment by considering only depreciation

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)

81,391 as compared to the book profits at INR 27,07,96,737 offered in the return of income. 3.2 The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard in response to the adjustments of book profits under section 115JB of the Act during the assessment proceedings and transfer pricing

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 92 provides that: `Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price’. Thus it is graphically clear that the ALP and the consequential transfer pricing adjustment is contemplated only in respect of the international transactions and not the entity level transactions. It is seen from the TPO’s order that

STARENT NETWORKS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.585/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

81,51,27,231/-, the Assessing Officer made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the 5 Transfer Pricing

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) of the Act. The assessee then filed 5 objections to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer passed final order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, dated 08.10.2010 and upheld all the additions proposed in the draft assessment order, since the DRP dismissed all the objections

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

81,46,129 TNMM sample 11 Expenditure Reimbursed Paid 47,37,318 CUP 12 Guarantee Commission Paid 78,89,367 OTHER METHOD Total 63,99,95,093/- 4. While the TPO accepted the various international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AEs, however, he did not agree with the ALP of the international transactions relating to Cost sharing