SKODA AUTO [ I ] P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is passed in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. Hence, the same is set aside. Since, the assessment 9 ITA No. 2344/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 28-12-2011 is illegal and invalid, the proceedings arising there from are vitiated. The assessee succeeds on additional grounds of appeal. Since

AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144C(3) of the Act on 19-03-2013 making addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment Rs.5,92,560/- and disallowance of warranty provision Rs.41,22,637/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of above mentioned additions / disallowances. Thereafter

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1951/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner E-25, 26 & 27, Bhosari Midc, Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune – 411026. Pune. Pan: Aaacl 1978 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandani Shah – Ar(S) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune, Dated 01.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2007-08 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Erroneous Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Circle - 9 (‘The Ld.Ao’) Of Levying Penalty, Being 100% Of Tax On The Addition To Returned Income Amounting To Inr 38,37,270, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rs.38,37,270/-. 2. Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Are Invalid On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Ao For

5. We have also gone through the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) & 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order also AO has merely mentioned penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Thus, even in the assessment order, the AO has not specified whether the penalty

YAZAKI (I) P LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA YAZAKI AUTOCOMP LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.163/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Act along with the said draft assessment order, thereby not following the mandate as laid down under section 144C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed.” 3. Having gone through

VANDERLANDE INDUSTRIES B.V. PUNE,PUNE vs. ADIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section (2) expires. 13. It is clear that the AO did not await for specified thirty days for receiving intimation from assessee for acceptance of variation or for no objections and issued demand notice u/s. 156 of the Act. It is also on record the final assessment order passed after the issuance of notice u/s. 156 and 274 r.w.s. 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. EAST WEST SEEDS LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) - which is a curable defect in view of the specific provisions of section 144C (1) and section 292B of the IT Act 1961, which clearly provides for curing of such defects, when in facts and substance the order is in conformity with the requirements of section 144C

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

144C(13) of the Act was passed whereby four additions were made viz; (1) disallowance of management service fees (TP adjustment) for sum of 16,97,34,348/- (2) denial of tax exemption claimed u/s 10A(7) & 10AA(9) of the Act for sum of 53,64,06,922/-, (3) addition of interest on refund received

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, 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)

section 144C of the Act. The Respondent prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed.” 7. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs.1,44,59,01,250/-. Certain 5 Atlas

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)

section 144C of the Act. The Respondent prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed.” 7. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of Rs.1,44,59,01,250/-. Certain 5 Atlas

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

5 are allowed. Grounds No. 1 is general in nature. Ground\nNo. 6 relating to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act is pre-mature.\n17.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2025.\nSd/-\n(R.K. Panda)\nVICE PRESIDENT

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

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

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

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2 ITA No. 379/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee company is a subsidiary of MSC Software Corporation, USA. The assessee is providing software development services

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s 92C(4) which are deemed to represent the concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. 9. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s 92C(4) which are deemed to represent the concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. 9. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

IMERYS NEWQUEST (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 590/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2 A.Y. 2010-11 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee-company is a joint venture of Imerys Group and Ballarpur Industries Group for manufacturing of Wet Ground Calcium Carbonate (WGCC), a chemical used

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

KNORR-BREMSE TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-14,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 274 read with section 271 (1)( c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income on account of transfer pricing adjustment, without appreciating the fact that, the transfer pricing adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion between the Appellant and the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA STEYR INDIA P. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Department in appeal has assailed the assessment order by raising following grounds : “01. Whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel was was right in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case in directing to grant proportionate adjustments

MAGNA STEYR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Department in appeal has assailed the assessment order by raising following grounds : “01. Whether the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel was was right in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case in directing to grant proportionate adjustments

ACIT CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Assessment Year : 2003-04 Acit, Circle- 1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad – 431201. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaecs3749M C.O. No.38/Pun/2011 (Arising Out Of Ita No.39/Pun/2011) Assessment Year : 2003-04 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (Saipl), A-1/1, Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Shendra, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaecs3749M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle- 1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Aurangabad. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Cross-Appeals Under Consideration. The Assessee Filed A Cross Objection Vide C.O. No.38/Pun/2011 For The Assessment Year

271(1)(c) along with the assessment order dated 29.12.2009 instead of draft assessment order and hence, since the procedure laid down in section 144C was not followed by the learned A.O., the assessment order passed be held invalid in law. 3] Without prejudice to the above additional grounds of cross objection, the assessee company submits that the adjustment