JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD) , CIRCLE -3,, PUNE vs. M/S. BOBST INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacb7295F C.O. No.42/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.445/Pun/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacb7295F बनाम / V/S. Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Assessee By : Shri R. G. Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 17.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Filed The Cross Objection.

144C(1) of the Act is no longer res integra?” 3. Supporting the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue both on legal and merits, the assessee filed the Cross Objection and raised the following cross objections :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. AO has 1. erred in objecting to the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2098/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

5. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in holding that since no draft order was passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections and has raised the issue against the rate to be applied on the income

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

5. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 6. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Skoda Auto A.S. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel was right in directing AO to delete proposed disallowance of claim of assessee of Rs.1,90,48,294/- under section

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. 12. Non-consideration of adjustment for differences on account of functional and risk profile of comparable companies vis-a-vis the Appellant Erred in comparing full-fledged risk bearing entities with the Appellant's captive operations without making any risk adjustment for differences between the functional and risk profile of comparable

LIEBHERR CMC TECH I P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

TDS, set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and de novo consideration. 6. The provisions of sub-section (8) of section 144C specifically bars the DRP to set-aside any proposed variation or issue as well as any direction for further enquiry, which means the DRP itself should decide the issue after causing

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

144C(6)(C) of the Act. The grounds of appeal mentioned below are without prejudice to the above ground. Transfer Pricing related grounds Ground No. 2: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in making a TP 2 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

144C(13) read\nwith section 1448 of the Act, by the learned additional/ Joint/\nDeputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, National Faceless\nAssessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"Assessing\nOfficer /\"AO\") in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble\nDispute Resolution Panel - 3, Mumbai [\"hereinafter referred to as\n\"DRP\"] on the following grounds, which are independent

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

144C(3) was passed on 31.01.2019. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 27.02.2019. Then, vide letter dated 15.06.2022, Assessee requested ld.CIT(A) to admit additional ground. The additional ground was as under : “7. Refund of excess taxes paid on the dividend distributed On facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.390,30,53,064/- after making the following disallowances to the returned income :- (a) Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.6,46,83,703/-. (b) Disallowance of EDP (Electronic Data Processing) expenses of Rs.42,49,840/-. (c) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Employees of Rs.22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In respect of deduction u/s 10A/10AA in respect

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In respect of deduction u/s 10A/10AA in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Act and made aforesaid additions. 9. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO and is in appeal before us. 10. We find that the issues raised in the present appeals are similar to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in various assessment years starting from assessment year

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in pursuance of the directions dated 25 January 2022(received on 25 January 2022) issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other: On the facts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

144C order dated 15.12.2014 directed the AO to frame the assessment order as per the directions contained therein. Pursuant to the directions of DRP, AO passed order u/s 144(C) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.01.2015 determining the total taxable income at Rs.47,40,81,004/-. Thereafter, AO passed order u/s 154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total