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.

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

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.

Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins

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

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

91,658 6,92,80,528 54,08,126 6,38,72,402 2013-14 32,81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL

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

91,658 6,92,80,528 54,08,126 6,38,72,402 2013-14 32,81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL

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

91,658 6,92,80,528 54,08,126 6,38,72,402 2013-14 32,81,21,587 4,78,94,987 28,02,26,600 4,66,98,148 23,35,28,452 TOTAL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act should be deleted. Your Honours would appreciate that additional ground can be raised at appellate stage, if the facts in connection with the issues raised, are on record. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PRVIATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act should be deleted. Your Honours would appreciate that additional ground can be raised at appellate stage, if the facts in connection with the issues raised, are on record. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard

MERCEDEZ-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act should be deleted. Your Honours would appreciate that additional ground can be raised at appellate stage, if the facts in connection with the issues raised, are on record. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act should be deleted. Your Honours would appreciate that additional ground can be raised at appellate stage, if the facts in connection with the issues raised, are on record. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above and all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the learned AO under section 143(3) of the Act should be deleted. Your Honours would appreciate that additional ground can be raised at appellate stage, if the facts in connection with the issues raised, are on record. In support of the said proposition, the Appellant relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard

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

Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value

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

Transfer Pricing which also recommends the indirect charge approach for intra- group services in certain circumstances. The relevant Paras from the OECD Guidelines are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Para 7.24 -In some cases, an indirect charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value

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

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

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

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