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

depreciation on civil works is allowed @ 10% and @15% on electric works instead of claimed by the assessee @15% and 20% respectively. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.29094637/- on account of Disallowance of Freebies to Doctors

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

144C of the Act i.e. has not issued any draft assessment order but has issued final ITA Nos.739 & 831/PUN/2015 3 assessment order along with demand notice and notice initiating penalty proceedings, then where in the case of assessee, an upward TP adjustment was made under section 92CA(3) of the Act by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), then such an order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LTD.,, JALGAON

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

144C of the Act i.e. has not issued any draft assessment order but has issued final ITA Nos.739 & 831/PUN/2015 3 assessment order along with demand notice and notice initiating penalty proceedings, then where in the case of assessee, an upward TP adjustment was made under section 92CA(3) of the Act by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), then such an order

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2300/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and in law, 1] The learned AO / DRP erred in recomputing the transfer price of the international transactions relating to exports and import of goods despite the fact that none of the conditions as prescribed

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2008-09. 2 ITA No. 2428/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee company is engaged in rendering software services. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee

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

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the IT Act. Since according to the calculation of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has no brought forward loss the assessee company reduced business loss of Rs.139 crores from business profits as per clause 3 of Explanation below section 115JB(2) of the IT Act. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the IT Act. Since according to the calculation of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has no brought forward loss the assessee company reduced business loss of Rs.139 crores from business profits as per clause 3 of Explanation below section 115JB(2) of the IT Act. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, 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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 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

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

144C(13) of the Act by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Brief Facts of the Case : 2. In this case the Assessee had filed return of Income on 29/11/2017 declaring a Loss of Rs.3,01,04,36,145/-. Since there Prodair Air Products India Pvt. Ltd., [A] was International transactions with the Associated Enterprise (AE) the case

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Depreciation Claim iii. Deduction and deposit of TDS iv. Deduction under Chapter VIA v. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income vi. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing vii. Deduction/Exemption u/s.10A/10AA viii. Income from house property ix. Reduction in profit due to ICDS x. International Transaction(s) xi. Loss from currency fluctuations 3. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1

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

1 Bilcare Inc & BSPL United Drugs USD USD 40,495.83 UK & sharp 61,000,000 61,000,000 clinical services 2 Bilcare Singapore Pte Hitachi USD USD -- Ltd. Capital 7,795,670 7,795,670 (Performance G) Singapore Pte Ltd. 3. Bilcare Singapore Pte SBLC – USD USD 4848.71 Ltd. Indusind Bank 6,500,000 6,500,000 4 Bilcare Packaging

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

1 Bilcare Inc & BSPL United Drugs USD USD 40,495.83 UK & sharp 61,000,000 61,000,000 clinical services 2 Bilcare Singapore Pte Hitachi USD USD -- Ltd. Capital 7,795,670 7,795,670 (Performance G) Singapore Pte Ltd. 3. Bilcare Singapore Pte SBLC – USD USD 4848.71 Ltd. Indusind Bank 6,500,000 6,500,000 4 Bilcare Packaging

BEKAERT INDUSTRIES P. LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2376/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Bekaert Industries Pvt. Ltd., Amar Paradigm, Near D Mart, S.No.110/11/3, Baner Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Baner, Pune - 411045 …. Pan: Aaacb8571E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another: 1. Common Ground - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld Assessing Officer ('AO') pursuant

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

144C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 2. The assessee has filed amended grounds of appeal which read as under:- On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred as under: Grounds pertaining to transfer pricing issues: 1. Inappropriate transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.11

KOSO INDIA PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3044/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Koso India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 H-33 & 34, Midc, Ambad, Nashik Nashik – 422 010 Pan : Aacck3621N Appellant Respondent

1) of section 144C provides that: “The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, on or after the 1st day of October

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

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 wef 1st April, 2020, duly approved by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order dated 24 June 2021, thereby making the entire assessment proceedings as void-ab-initio and is liable