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

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act.\nPrayer\nThe Appellant prays that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/ 274 r.w.s.\n271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO is not warranted and hence the Ld. AO\nshould be directed to drop the penalty proceedings.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to each other.\nThe Appellant craves

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

section 271, which unlike the cases of penalty levied on account of other additions, the Explanation- 7 provides deeming provisions in respect of addition or disallowance made u/s 92C

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

section 271, which unlike the cases of penalty levied on account of other additions, the Explanation- 7 provides deeming provisions in respect of addition or disallowance made u/s 92C

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. The Appellant requests the Hon'ble members a right to amend, alter, substitute or add to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

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

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

92C(2) of the Act. Other grounds 5 A.Y. 2010-11 8. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, without considering the fact that the adjustment to returned income

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned DRP erred in not giving any directions in respect of the same. b. The learned ACIT / DRP erred in not appreciating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant for penalty proceedings to be initiated in this regard. 9. Each

A RAYMOND FASTENERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-8, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.311/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 A Raymond Fasteners India P.Ltd., G. No. 259, 276/8B, Nighoje, Chakan, Taluka – Khed, Pune – 410 501. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Aagca7184G

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. 2 A.Y. : 2016-17 A Raymond Fasteners India P.Ltd., . Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :- “1. erred in assessing the total income at INR 8,17,88,857 as against

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, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub-section (4) of section 92C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after satisfying himself that the assessee failed to prove that the prices charged or paid in International Taxation was computed in good faith and with due diligence. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee whereas the AO has proved that the act done

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2295 & 2296/Pun/2017 करनििाारण वषा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(2), Pune. बनाम / V/S. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19A, Ranjangaon Midc, Shirur, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan : Aaacf1716D द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Appeals Of The Revenue Are Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/07/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Sprung Out Of Orders Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 29/03/2017 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2009-10 & 2010-11. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 5

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after satisfying himself that the assessee failed to prove that the prices charged or paid in International Taxation was computed in good faith and with due diligence. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee whereas the AO has proved that the act done

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

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. In reply, the assessee explained its case. However, the same were found to be not acceptable. The submission of assessee was that it had huge interest funds for investments and it also earned interest, so no disallowance was warranted. The Assessing Officer notes that it was undeniable that the assessee had 168/PUN/2018

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. In reply, the assessee explained its case. However, the same were found to be not acceptable. The submission of assessee was that it had huge interest funds for investments and it also earned interest, so no disallowance was warranted. The Assessing Officer notes that it was undeniable that the assessee had 168/PUN/2018

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER 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. 337/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

penalty proceedings section 271(1) read with section 274 of the Act, without considering the facts of the case. 9. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 10. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” A.Y.2009-10 4. Shri Arvind Sonde appearing on behalf of assessee

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

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

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

92C(2) of the Act; Erroneous calculation of total assessed income 8. erred in calculating the total assessed income at Rs.31,93,76,540 instead of loss returned as Rs.15,20,73,963 CO No.18/PUN/2018 Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act 9. erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C