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

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 6. The AO passed the assessment order uls 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 17.04.2015 (Received by assessee on 07.05.2015). Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the Assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.06.2015. In respect of transfer pricing adjustment

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. CARRARO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of addition made in proceedings u/s. 92C, we find that ‘Explanation-7’ to section 271(1)(c) comes into play. For the sake of completeness, the provisions of Explanation 7 are reproduced herein below: “Explanation-7-Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction [or specified domestic

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. DEMAG CRANES & COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.583/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The Revenue in ITA No.552/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in allowing for the aggregation

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.583/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 4. The Revenue in ITA No.552/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in allowing for the aggregation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06

penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c) with reference to Explanation 7, which reads as under : Explanation 7.—Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction defined in section 92B