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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. For the proposition, the assessee relied on various binding judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawa JMA-Harima 5 Kumar Kondiba Shingare Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT, 288 ITR 408 and many others also. Further, assessee argued before

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. For the proposition, the assessee relied on various binding judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawa JMA-Harima 5 Kumar Kondiba Shingare Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT, 288 ITR 408 and many others also. Further, assessee argued before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. For the proposition, the assessee relied on various binding judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawa JMA-Harima 5 Kumar Kondiba Shingare Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT, 288 ITR 408 and many others also. Further, assessee argued before

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. For the proposition, the assessee relied on various binding judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawa JMA-Harima 5 Kumar Kondiba Shingare Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT, 288 ITR 408 and many others also. Further, assessee argued before

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. For the proposition, the assessee relied on various binding judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawa JMA-Harima 5 Kumar Kondiba Shingare Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT, 288 ITR 408 and many others also. Further, assessee argued before

FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) of the Act. The DRP did not interfere with the impugned order which has brought the assessee before the Tribunal. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we consider it expedient to, first, discuss the nature of services rendered by the assessee to Faurecia India in terms of Services Agreement dated 3.1.2011, pursuant

FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

vii) of the Act. The DRP did not interfere with the impugned order which has brought the assessee before the Tribunal. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we consider it expedient to, first, discuss the nature of services rendered by the assessee to Faurecia India in terms of Services Agreement dated 3.1.2011, pursuant

GRUPO ANTOLIN IRAUSA S.A.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Groupo Antolin Irausa S.A. Vs. Ddit C/O. B-25, Midc, (International Taxation)-1, Ranjangaon, Shirur, Pune Pune 412 220 Pan : Aadcg9626L Appellant Respondent

price with the suppliers. Pages 264 to 267 are certain e-mail exchanges on Human resources by which the Indian entity was directed by the assessee to furnish particulars of certain employees and also expressing its displeasure over the Indian entity not 9 Grupo Antolin Irausa S.A. responding timely. Pages 268 and 269 are copies of e-mail exchanges between

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computing arm's length price in respect of international transactions entered into by the assessee with its associated enterprises. The TPO vide order dated 10.10.2013 under section 92CA(3) of the Act accepted international transactions of assessee at ₹ 19,48,32,921/- with its associated enterprises to be at arm's length. The Assessing Officer

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

vii) receipt of\ndesign engineering and testing services; (viii) insite pro\nregistration charges; (ix) user licence fees; (x) receipt of\nwarranty service; and (xi) receipt of training service,\nwith its AE. For the purpose of benchmarking, the\nassessee had aggregated all these transactions as\nrelated to its manufacturing activity and used TNMM as\nthe most appropriate method. The assessee worked

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

vii) receipt of\ndesign engineering and testing services; (viii) insite pro\nregistration charges; (ix) user licence fees; (x) receipt of\nwarranty service; and (xi) receipt of training service,\nwith its AE. For the purpose of benchmarking, the\nassessee had aggregated all these transactions as\nrelated to its manufacturing activity and used TNMM as\nthe most appropriate method. The assessee worked

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE -1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Vs. Dcit, Range-1(1), Limited, Pune 407, City Tower Floor, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment. The AO, vide his order dated 14-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act observed that the assessee debited Software Maintenance charges at Rs.6.86 crore, which amount was about 400% higher in comparison with the preceding year, in which such Software charges stood at Rs.1.67 crore. The assessee was called upon

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

9(1)(vii) of the Act nor liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to disallow the A&M expenses of Rs.2,47,13,051/-. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to 15 allow

SANDVIK MACHINING SOLUTION AB, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS) SANDVIK TOLLING SEVERIGE AB),,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

price of an article and hence could not be considered as royalty in the hands of the recipient under the DTAA. 13. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is observed that the assessee transferred a limited right in the CAD/CAM to SAPL. There was no transfer of copyright or use of any copyright. As against the requirement