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.

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 92CA(1) of the Act in order to determine the Arm‟s Length Price (“ALP”) in respect of such international transactions. 2.2 The assessee undertook the following international transactions with its AEs during AY 2013-14 and benchmarked each transaction by selecting the Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) mentioned in the table below: Sr. Nature of International Amount

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]

301 of the Paper book)” In the Transfer Pricing 25 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] Study Report there is no specific discussion regarding basis of allocation of Common Cost. Transfer Pricing Study report should have contained all these details but it does not contain the details of basis of allocation of common cost. 6.1 The turnover of the three segments

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

301 can be said to have been incurred for earning the dividend income in the absence of any nexus and further disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not warranted. Levy of interest 14. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act.‖ 3. Learned

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

TDS other than salary is Rs.57,70,151/- whereas as per Form 26Q you have deposited Rs.57,59,489/- Please clarify. 7. As per form 3CD, Col.17, Sale of TDR is less than value adopted by State Govt. authority referred to in Section 50C or 43CA. Please explain with evidence. 8. You have claimed Advance for land to the tune

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 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)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

301(Delhi). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Basic facts of this case are as under : 4.1 The assessee had filed return of income for A.Y.2020-21 on 19/12/2020 declaring total income at Rs.42,87,800/- and agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-. The said return was processed under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

301 (Bom).\nHe submitted that in this case also the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148\nin the name of Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd. which had merged with City\nCorporation Ltd. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the notice issued\nu/s 148 in the name of a non existing entity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

301 (Bom).\nHe submitted that in this case also the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148\nin the name of Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd. which had merged with City\nCorporation Ltd. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the notice issued\nu/s 148 in the name of a non existing entity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

301 (Bom).\nHe submitted that in this case also the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148\nin the name of Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd. which had merged with City\nCorporation Ltd. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the notice issued\nu/s 148 in the name of a non existing entity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

301 (Bom).\nHe submitted that in this case also the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148\nin the name of Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd. which had merged with City\nCorporation Ltd. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the notice issued\nu/s 148 in the name of a non existing entity

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

301, 3rd Floor, Sasoon Rd., N.W. College., Pune-411001 PAN :AABCE5660N . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16/05/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal instituted by the Revenue

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS of Rs.3.20 crores\nand self assessment tax of Rs.0.43 crore.\n15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that specific disclosure of\nmaterial facts were furnished for making the claim in the return. Referring to page\n7 of the paper book for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\ndrew the attention of the Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVE vs. RAJENDRA MADHUKAR JOSHI, KAMOTHE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in respect of a sale transaction. Under these circumstances, the AO is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs.29,00,000/- made by the FAO u/s.68 of the Act.” 11. So far as the loan of Rs.1.00 lakh from Usha Jagdish Tisge is concerned, ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that

SAI SIDDHI CONSTRUCTIONS ,SATANA vs. CIT(A), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3088/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sai Siddhi Constructions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shramik Nagar, Ward-1, Malegaon Satana, Nampur Road, Baglan, Nashik 423 301 Maharashtra Pan : Aaabs8205M Appellant Respondent

301 Maharashtra PAN : AAABS8205M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Shri Eknath Abhang Revenue by : Date of hearing : 03.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 14.11.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income