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)

4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue submitted that Assessee had not claimed deduction on Income from Other Sources and Capital Gains under section 80IAB of the Act in the Return of Income and in the Form No.10CCB. Ld.DR for the Revenue took us through the relevant pages of the Return of Income. Ld.DR relied on section

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

144C(3) dated 30.01.2020 after making the addition on account of TP adjustment of Rs.22,76,78,495/-, addition on account of commission expenditure of Rs.16,03,019/- and addition on account of difference in returned loss as per original C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 return of income filed by the assessee company on 28.11.2016. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed total loss

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

144C(3) dated 30.01.2020 after making the addition on account of TP adjustment of Rs.22,76,78,495/-, addition on account of commission expenditure of Rs.16,03,019/- and addition on account of difference in returned loss as per original C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 return of income filed by the assessee company on 28.11.2016. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed total loss

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

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

144C(13) of the Act, assessing the Total Income of the Assessee at Rs.7,75,500/-. 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1 Thus, in this case it is an admitted fact that the Assessee was NRI and source of funds for purchase of flat number 4101, Building Alpine, Kandivali Mumbai was Income

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 153 of the Act and therefore, bad in law and be struck down and annulled 4. The Ld. AD erred in passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) dated July 26, 2024 on the name of the Appellant company which has ceased to exist pursuant to the merger with Capgemini Technology Services India Limited

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

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

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

gain arising on account of business operations from operating costs. 11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in and the Honourable DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of not allowing an adjustment for the difference between the level of risk borne

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

M/S. EXTENTIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Extentia Information Technology Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), Pune Extentia Tower, Survey No.209-1,2,3, Sub Plot No.34, Road No.12A, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411 006 Pan : Aaace7933M Appellant Respondent

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Modified grounds have been filed and also certain additional grounds have been raised by the assessee. Since the additional 2 M/s. Extentia Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. grounds involve pure question of law and do not require any fresh

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal “Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon„ble DRP erred in directing the Ld. AO to tax the receipt Rs.9

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2111/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The first issue raised through six grounds is against the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.30.28 crore made in the international transaction of `Payment of Royalty for use of technology’. 2 Cummins India Limited 3. Briefly stated, the facts

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

144C(13) of the Act. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 and cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal relating