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.

96 to 1998-99. The provisions of section 10A(6) r.w.s. 80- I(9) of the Act, which were before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are quite similar to the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act before us. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, upheld the stand that the requirements of the provisions

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.

96 to 1998-99. The provisions of section 10A(6) r.w.s. 80- I(9) of the Act, which were before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are quite similar to the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act before us. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, upheld the stand that the requirements of the provisions

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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

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

section 92C under different methods. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the `Profit Split method’ has been set out in rule 10B(1)(d) reading as under:- “(d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions or specified domestic transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions or specified domestic transactions which

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GALLAGHER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NFAC,, DELHI

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B ITA No.679/PUN/2022 [A] of the Act, on 15.07.2022 making an addition of Rs.2,06,94,009/-. Aggrieved by the same, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission of ld.AR : 3. At the outset of hearing, ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that Assessee intends to press only Ground No.6. Ld.AR submitted

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

SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

pricing adjustment under section 92CA(3) of the Act at ₹ 40,96,292/-. 4. The Assessing Officer had passed draft assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act after receipt of order of the Transfer

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)

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

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Capgemini Technology V The Assistant Services India Limited[As S Commissioner Of Income Successor In Interest Of Tax-1(1)(1), Pune. Erstwhile Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited-Since Amalgamated], Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District- Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacck8280B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The

96 taxmann.com 182 (Bombay), the Hon'ble High Court held that where in case of foreign assessee, Assessing Officer passed final assessment order under section 144C(13), read with section 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order under section 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions of section 144C(1), deserved to be set aside. In the case

RIETER INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Transfer Pricing Offer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO noted that the assessee had divided its international transactions into two classes based on the functions performed. Export of textile components, import of spare parts, provision of marketing support services, installation commissioning and warranty support services were in class – 1 transactions which were benchmarked using TNMM method

YAZAKI INDIA P LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAZAKI (I) LTD.,),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Ergo, we order to delete the addition of Rs.2,96,50,650/- made on this score. This ground is allowed. 10 Yazaki India Private Limited 9. The next issue concerns the transfer pricing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED, BARAMATI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “the TPO”) under section 92CA(2) of the Act, the assessee‟s assertion was rejected. The TPO rejected the application of external TNMM adopted by the assessee and instead applied internal TNMM mechanism in order to benchmark the international transaction relating to export of spares and components to AE. The TPO analyzed the profitability

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “the TPO”) under section 92CA(2) of the Act, the assessee‟s assertion was rejected. The TPO rejected the application of external TNMM adopted by the assessee and instead applied internal TNMM mechanism in order to benchmark the international transaction relating to export of spares and components to AE. The TPO analyzed the profitability

VENTURA INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP-2)2, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 234B of the Act, as applicable, on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 7,90,08,000. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend one or more of the above Grounds of Appeal at any time before

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

96,958/- Rs.2,74,410/- 19022% Desai 5 Sambhaji Shamrao Patil 3,00,00,000/- Rs.2,08,110/- 14416% 6 Hanmant Bajirao Desai 5,16,30,000/- Rs.2,15,670/- 23947% 7 Pratap Ramdas Janugade 1,25,78,763/- Rs.4,59,040/- 2740% 17 21. Although the case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of Share capital / other capital

M/S. PRINCIPAL GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 482/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Principal Global Services Private Limited. Tower 6, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Hadapsar, Pune-411 028. … Pan : Aadcp7369P बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-4, Pune.

section 14A of the Act, is not pressed and hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4 M/s. Principal Global Services Pvt. Ltd. 6. Vide ground of appeal No.2, the assessee has raised several issues with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee i.e. provision of software development services to the associated enterprises, an upward

M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD., (ERSTWHILE:M/S. BELLFLOWER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Pune (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Pune Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., adjustment on this score. Side by side, Chapter X-A of the Act containing GAAR has also been made applicable from the 1st day of April, 2018. Starting with a non-obstante clause, section 95(1) provides that an arrangement entered into by an assessee may be declared an impermissible avoidance arrangement