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

144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Act, dated 26/02/2022 is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus both the conditions specified under section 263 of the Act are satisfied in this case and it is a fit case to invoke provisions of the said section. Hence, the assessment order dated 26/02/2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18 is hereby

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(8) of the Act, the Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. The DRP has no power to quash, annul or declare

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "135", "37(1)", "142(1)", "80G", "80G(5)", "80G(1)", "37", "30", "36", "144C(13)", "143(2)", "115JB", "115JJB" ], "issues": "Whether CSR expenditure, even if disallowed

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LTD.,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

144C(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2020-21 dated 25.07.2024, emanating from order of Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C(5) of the Act for A.Y.2020-21, ITA No.1962/PUN/2024 [A] dated 10.06.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “A. Transfer Pricing Issues 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["hereinafter referred to as "the Act'] on the following grounds which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. Grounds on Transfer Pricing issue 1. General Ground: Transfer pricing adjustment of INR 6,53,65,772/- 1.1 The Ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.338/Pun/2021 & 236/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 144C, it is vivid that - the opportunity of hearing to the assessee is required to be given by the DRP before deciding on the objections raised before it; the direction is given for the guidance of the AO; and after the receipt of the direction, the AO has to straight away pass the final assessment order without providing

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.338/Pun/2021 & 236/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 144C, it is vivid that - the opportunity of hearing to the assessee is required to be given by the DRP before deciding on the objections raised before it; the direction is given for the guidance of the AO; and after the receipt of the direction, the AO has to straight away pass the final assessment order without providing

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act. 12. Non-consideration of adjustment for differences on account of functional and risk profile of comparable companies vis-a-vis the Appellant Erred in comparing full-fledged risk bearing entities with the Appellant's captive operations without making any risk adjustment for differences between the functional and risk profile of comparable

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

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

disallowances related to Section 40(a)(ia) and ICDS adjustments were also correctly deleted.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(3)", "143(3)", "144C

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2054/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tata Technologies Limited, The Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.25, Phase I, Rajiv Vs Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaactg 3092 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafana & Smt.Chandni Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Moray - Dr Date Of Hearing 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune Dated 30.10.2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 U/S 143(3)Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act. The Appellant Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao, Following The Directions Of The Ld. Drp, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo In Rejecting The Alp Computation Undertaken By The Appellant For Benchmarking The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment Of Commission, Thereby Making A Tp Adjustment Of Rs.5,79,53,349 In The Software Distribution Segment.

144C(13) of the Income tax Act. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO, following the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in confirming the action of the Ld. TPO in rejecting the ALP computation undertaken by the Appellant for benchmarking

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C of the\nincome-tax Act 1961, for which the last date of fling under that Section is 1st\nApril 2021 or thereafter may be filed within the time provided under that\nSection or by 31st May 2021, whichever is later,\nc) Income tax return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 for which

BILCARE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act on Employees Secondment charges and Reimbursement of expenses was not subject matter of the draft order, still the Hon’ble High Court, considering the ambit of the Explanation to section 144C

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-

disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act. These 4 decisions, therefore, limited their observations to the applicability of section 14A of the Act on dividend income. Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon'ble SC in Tata Tea decision

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adient India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, S No.235 & 245, Circle-1(1), Pune Hinjewadi, Tal-Mulshi, Pune - 411057 Pan : Aaact6342D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue By S/Shri Kalika Singh & Madhavan A.M. Krishnan Date Of Hearing 27-05-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31-05-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27-10-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‗The Act‘) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Transfer Pricing Addition Of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That The Assessee Was Earlier A 50:50 Joint

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‗the Act‘) in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against transfer pricing addition of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee was earlier a 50:50 joint venture between Johnson Controls

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144C of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assesse has raised identical substantial grounds in all its three instant appeals. Its former twin substantial grounds in both these assessment years seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action invoking Section

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144C of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assesse has raised identical substantial grounds in all its three instant appeals. Its former twin substantial grounds in both these assessment years seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action invoking Section

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144C of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assesse has raised identical substantial grounds in all its three instant appeals. Its former twin substantial grounds in both these assessment years seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action invoking Section

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 144C(13) of the Act. We thus partly affirm the impugned disallowance only to the extent of the foregoing