ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

delay in condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal. 3. The ld. AR did not press ground no. 1 concerning deduction u/s 10A and ground no. 4 regarding the treatment of foreign exchange loss/ gain. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 4. The first effective issue raised in the assessee’s appeal is against the addition

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

delay in condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal. 3. The ld. AR did not press ground no. 1 concerning deduction u/s 10A and ground no. 4 regarding the treatment of foreign exchange loss/ gain. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 4. The first effective issue raised in the assessee’s appeal is against the addition

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

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

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

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE , PANVEL vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 595/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay and proceed to hear this appeal on merits. We further take note of the present pandemic situation where the movement of people are restricted and because of such practical situation, it is always not possible to follow the time of limitation regarding filing of appeal before various Forums. This fact was also observed and taken cognizance

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 Dana India Private Limited A. TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION IN `MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES’ 3. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition of Rs.22,60,76,000/- made by the AO in the ‘Manufacturing activities’. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

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

delay in filing the appeal late is condoned and we proceed to decide the present appeals. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,31,14,246/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made reference under section 92CA

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

delay in filing the appeal late is condoned and we proceed to decide the present appeals. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,31,14,246/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made reference under section 92CA

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

delay in filing the appeal late is condoned and we proceed to decide the present appeals. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,31,14,246/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made reference under section 92CA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. UBITSOFT ENTERTAINMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

method is concerned, there was no dispute. The assessee was being remunerated on cost plus markup of 8.87% and the margins of assessee were 8.53%. The assessee has selected certain comparables whose mean margins worked out at 6.80% and hence, international transactions were held to be at arm's length price. However, the TPO selected certain other concerns and data

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

method is concerned, there was no dispute. The assessee was being remunerated on cost plus markup of 8.87% and the margins of assessee were 8.53%. The assessee has selected certain comparables whose mean margins worked out at 6.80% and hence, international transactions were held to be at arm's length price. However, the TPO selected certain other concerns and data

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. SPICER INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

delay of 177 days are condoned. 3. The Revenue raised as many as 6 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the adjustment of Rs.14,71,41,219/- made by the AO/TPO on account of management services fees in the facts and circumstances of the case

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

delay of one day is thus, condoned. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,04,01,599/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee company was engaged in the business of software development. Since the assessee had entered into

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

delay of one day is thus, condoned. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,04,01,599/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee company was engaged in the business of software development. Since the assessee had entered into

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.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

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.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE vs. NALCO WATER INDIA LTD., , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150 /Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalco Water India Private Vs The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As . Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Naclo Water India Limited) Pune. S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Panchshil, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Nalco Water India Private Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune. . Limited, S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Hadapsar, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar & Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Assessee’S & Revenue’S Cross Appeals Ita No.150 & 151/Pun/2022 For A.Y. 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-13

Delay of two days in filing of the assessee’s appeal ITA No.150/PUN/2022 stands condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. 3. We next note that the assessee instant appeal raises five substantive grounds. Its first and foremost substantive grievance is that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in holding subvention money receipts

NALCO WATER INDIA LTD., ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150 /Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nalco Water India Private Vs The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As . Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Naclo Water India Limited) Pune. S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Panchshil, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Nalco Water India Private Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune. . Limited, S.No.238/239, 3Rd Floor, Quadra 1, Hadapsar, Magarpatta Road, Sade Satra Nali, Pune – 411028. Pan: Aaaco 4994 N Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar & Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Assessee’S & Revenue’S Cross Appeals Ita No.150 & 151/Pun/2022 For A.Y. 2013-14, Arise Against The Cit(A)-13

Delay of two days in filing of the assessee’s appeal ITA No.150/PUN/2022 stands condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. 3. We next note that the assessee instant appeal raises five substantive grounds. Its first and foremost substantive grievance is that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in holding subvention money receipts