M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

10B and made a passing remark that the revised return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) only substituted original return of income u/s 139(1) and cannot be C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 transformed as return u/s 139(3) in order to avail the benefit of carry forward and set-off of any loss under the provisions of section

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

10B of the Income Tax Act was explained by an initial submission of the assessee and also thereafter inquired into by the Assessing Officer raising specific queries on that issue. These queries were responded to by the assessee and then the said issue was decided in the assessee's favour. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held in this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

III, MIDC-SEZ, Village-Man, Taluka-Mulshi, Pune-411057 PAN : AABCM4573E ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri Anurag Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14-09-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 26-10-2021 2 ITA Nos.2395 & 2624/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These cross appeals filed

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

III, MIDC-SEZ, Village-Man, Taluka-Mulshi, Pune-411057 PAN : AABCM4573E ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri Anurag Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14-09-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 26-10-2021 2 ITA Nos.2395 & 2624/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These cross appeals filed

PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

iii) Disallowed travelling expenses Rs. 20,000/- ------------------ Rs. 10,39,970/-. ------------------ 5. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, on an examination of record, the ld. Pr. CIT has come to know that A.O erred in following manner while passing the assessment order dated 24-12-2013. i) Interest of Rs. 2

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

gained from filing 3 Skyline Developers the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone

ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 wherein it has been observed as under: “41. The learned DR had also raised some objection to the revised margin of profit shown by the taxpayer by taking lower rate of depreciation. This objection in our opinion is without any substance. The depreciation is required to be worked out under the Indian Companies

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 wherein it has been observed as under: “41. The learned DR had also raised some objection to the revised margin of profit shown by the taxpayer by taking lower rate of depreciation. This objection in our opinion is without any substance. The depreciation is required to be worked out under the Indian Companies

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gains (13ilia +13iiib) (enter nil if loss)\n13ific\n0\niv\nIncome from other sources [as per item no. 4 of Schedule OS]\n13iv\n0\nV\nTotal (13i + 13ii + 13ilic + 13iv)\n13v\n0\n14\nGross income [7+11+13v-8-9-10-12]\n14\n0\n15\nLosses of current year to be set off against 13v (total

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

2) is the eligible international transaction of `Provision of software development services’ and the safe harbour, requiring acceptance of the declared transaction value, has been prescribed as the operating profit margin of not less than 20% of operating expenses. Explanation to section 92CB of the Act itself provides 5 Dana India Private Limited the meaning of "safe harbour

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

10B, copy of income expenditure statement, ledger copy of\nexpenses, balance sheet etc. The Ld. AO observed that there is no direct\nnexus between the income from other sources earned and expenses\nincurred and claimed as deduction u/s 57 of the Act and therefore the\namount of Rs.6,69,44,047/- claimed as expenses cannot be allowed as\ndeduction

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1), , PUNE vs. M/S CAPEGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES I LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGAGE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1), M/S.Capegemini Technology Pune. Vs Services India Ltd., (Formerly . Known As Igate Global Solutions Ltd., ) Plot No.114, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase- Iii, Midc Sez, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aabcm 4573 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe –Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Appeals For A.Y.2005-06 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order, Dated 09.03.2020 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-1/Dcit Circ.1(1)/77/2013-14/38, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

III, MIDC SEZ, Pune – 411057. PAN: AABCM 4573 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri CH Naniwadekar– AR Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe –DR Date of hearing 24/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This appeals for A.Y.2005-06 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’s order, dated 09.03.2020 passed in case

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

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Ground No.1 is general. The ld. AR did not press ground No.2 taken in the Memorandum of appeal. Ground No. 9 is premature. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed. 3. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case

CUMMINS TURBO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital adjustment. 5. Erroneous rejection of a comparable companies 5.1 The learned Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of learned DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in rejecting the following functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing study report. • CG-VAK Software and Exports Limited • Jeevan Scientific Technology

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked