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

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

144C(3). Now, we come to the second scenario of the assessee aggrieved by the draft order. If the assessee is not satisfied with the draft order, sub- section (5) comes into play, which stipulates that the DRP shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such necessary directions for the guidance

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

5. The issue raised vide additional ground of appeal is that where the Assessing Officer has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 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

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

5. The issue raised vide additional ground of appeal is that where the Assessing Officer has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of section 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

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

5 Bilcare Packaging BPL – The USD USD 14394.23 Ltd. South Indian 21,700,000 21,700,000 Bank Ltd. 6 Bilcare Packaging BPL – The USD USD 6633.29 Ltd. Lakshmi Vilas 10,000,000 10,000,000 Bank Ltd. 7 Bilcare Packaging BPL – IDBI USD USD 4864.19 Ltd. Bank Ltd. 7,333,000 7,333,000 77,839.71 6. In respect

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

5 Bilcare Packaging BPL – The USD USD 14394.23 Ltd. South Indian 21,700,000 21,700,000 Bank Ltd. 6 Bilcare Packaging BPL – The USD USD 6633.29 Ltd. Lakshmi Vilas 10,000,000 10,000,000 Bank Ltd. 7 Bilcare Packaging BPL – IDBI USD USD 4864.19 Ltd. Bank Ltd. 7,333,000 7,333,000 77,839.71 6. In respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. NORD DRIVE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal as well as cross objection are

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Nord Drive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune 282/2, 283/2, Plot No.15, Village Mann, Mulshi, Pune – 411 057 Pan : Aaccn0708R Appellant Respondent C.O. No.12/Pun/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.825/Pun/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nord Drive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-2, 282/2, 283/2, Plot No.15, Pune Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, Adj. Hinjewadi Midc, Phase-Ii, Pune – 411 057 Pan : Aaccn0708R Cross Objector Appellant In The Appeal Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah & Shri Rohit Tapadia Revenue By Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing 27-11-2019 Date Of Pronouncement 28-11-2019 आदेश / Order

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has filed the following two effective amended grounds, which read as under : “1. Whether the Hon’ble DRP was right in law and on facts in directing to allow cash PLI to the assessee and ignoring

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 3. Deduction and deposit of TDS 4. Deduction under Chapter VIA 5. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 6. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed

M/S. ADLER MEDIEQUIP PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE

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

section 144C(5) of the Act on the following grounds: General 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, based on directions of DRP, has erred in assessing total income of the Assessee at Rs 2,14,38,066 as against returned loss of Rs 7,82,44,744. Disallowance

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

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

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation @ 60% was allowed and net addition was of ₹ 10,70,641/-; c) Adjustment of interest paid under section 220(2) of the Act against interest received under section 244A of the Act at ₹ 23,43,436/-; d) Software deduction claimed on the basis of disallowance made in earlier years at ₹ 5,21,813/-; e) Transfer pricing adjustment under section

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

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Section 144C(6)(C) of the Act. The grounds of appeal mentioned below are without prejudice to the above ground. Transfer Pricing related grounds Ground No. 2: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in making a TP 2 M/s.Persistent Systems

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

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

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