DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANDA GORAKHANATH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 3, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

section 144C (procedure before DRP) is not applicable to the Appellant. Considering the above fact, the Appellant believes that entire Assessment should be considered to be invalid and the final assessment order should be quashed. Prayer The Appellant requests Hon’ble Panel to treat the Assessment as invalid considering that the Appellant was not provided with sufficient opportunity to make

TIETO I.T. SERVICES INDIA P. LTD., .,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 340/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Shorn off unnecessary details, it is seen that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.56,99,014/-, inter alia, claiming deduction u/s.10B of the Act. Apart from the transfer pricing addition amounting to Rs.5.61 crore, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.10B amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. TIETO SOFTWARES TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 340/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Shorn off unnecessary details, it is seen that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.56,99,014/-, inter alia, claiming deduction u/s.10B of the Act. Apart from the transfer pricing addition amounting to Rs.5.61 crore, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.10B amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1458/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

delay in filing Cross Objections late, is condoned. 4. The issue raised in Cross Objections affects the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in passing assessment order and hence, the same needs to be adjudicated first. 5. The ground of objection No.1 reads as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Deputy

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Corporate Tax Grounds: Ground 5 -Disallowance of provision of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bad debts written off of' Rs. 10,14,691 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing: 5.1 A provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TASTY BITES EATABLES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Corporate Tax Grounds: Ground 5 -Disallowance of provision of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bad debts written off of' Rs. 10,14,691 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing: 5.1 A provision

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

8. On receipt of the directions of the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 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

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

8. On receipt of the directions of the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TRIPLE POINT TECHNLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is allowed, appeal of Revenue in assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2012-13 is partly al...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.581/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Triple Point Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.3, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Airport Road, Yerwada, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan:Aabct8184A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

144C(13) of the Act. ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 3 2. We proceed to decide the present appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue. 4. The assessee in ITA No.581/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ground

M/S. TRIPLE POINT TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is allowed, appeal of Revenue in assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2012-13 is partly al...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.581/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Triple Point Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.3, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Airport Road, Yerwada, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan:Aabct8184A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

144C(13) of the Act. ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 3 2. We proceed to decide the present appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue. 4. The assessee in ITA No.581/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ground

M/S. TRIPLE POOINT TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is allowed, appeal of Revenue in assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2012-13 is partly al...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.581/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Triple Point Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.3, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Airport Road, Yerwada, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan:Aabct8184A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

144C(13) of the Act. ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 3 2. We proceed to decide the present appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue. 4. The assessee in ITA No.581/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S. BHAIRAVNATH SUGAR WORKS LTD., PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle 1(1), Vs. M/S. Bhairavanath Sugar Works Ltd., Pune S.No. 21/2, Sawant Corner, Pune-Mumbai Bypass Road, Katraj, Pune. Pan: Aadcb0529M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri B.C. Malakar Revenue By Smt. Divya Bhajpai Date Of Hearing 10-06-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11-06-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called „The Act‟) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. This Appeal Was Filed Belatedly By 68 Days. The Ld. Dr Explained The Lockdown Due To Covid-19 As The Reason For The Late Filing Of The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Did Not Object

144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called „the Act‟) in relation to the assessment year 2013- 14. 2. This appeal was filed belatedly by 68 days. The ld. DR explained the lockdown due to covid-19 as the reason for the late filing of the appeal. The ld. AR did not object to the condonation

M/S. ANSYS INC,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT),CIRCLE -1,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. He Further Submitted That This Delay Has Been Caused Due To The Bonafide Belief That On The Concerned Day Of Filing Of The Appeal, The Tribunal Was Not Functioning But Later On They Came To Know That It Was A Working Day. Therefore, It Was Prayed By The Ld. Counsel That This One Day‟S Delay May Be Condoned Since It Is Neither Deliberate Nor Intentional & Has Been Caused Because Of Mistake Of Information & Knowledge. The Ld. D.R Did Not Raise Objection.

144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is one day‟s delay in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that this delay has been caused

TDK ELECTRONICS AG (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG),,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.160/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) (International C/O Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., Taxation), Plot No.E 22-25, Midc, Satpur, Circle-2, Pune Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.172/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) (International C/O Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., Taxation), Plot No.E 22-25, Midc, Satpur, Circle-2, Pune Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Since both the appeals are based on similar facts and identical grounds, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. A.Y. 2016-17 2. Tersely stated

TDK ELECTRONICS AG (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG),,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.160/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) (International C/O Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., Taxation), Plot No.E 22-25, Midc, Satpur, Circle-2, Pune Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.172/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) (International C/O Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., Taxation), Plot No.E 22-25, Midc, Satpur, Circle-2, Pune Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Since both the appeals are based on similar facts and identical grounds, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. A.Y. 2016-17 2. Tersely stated

SANDVIK AB,PUNE vs. ACIT (INTL TAXATION), CIR-2, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.18/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

sections 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 166 days. The ld. AR stated that the delay pertains to Covid-19 Pandemic and hence, covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.526/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 Revenue in ITA No.664/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances