DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

271 Taxman 170 (Karnataka) while deciding an identical issue has upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under: “3. It is the contention of learned Advocates appearing for revenue that tribunal was not justified in arriving at conclusion that Clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which had been

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

271 Taxman 170 (Karnataka) while deciding an identical issue has upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under: “3. It is the contention of learned Advocates appearing for revenue that tribunal was not justified in arriving at conclusion that Clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act, which had been

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

REINSHAW METRLOGY SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PUNE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm आयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.1560/Pun/2017 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Renishaw Metrology Systems Limited, The D.C.I.T., S.No. 283, Hissa No. 2, S.No. 284, Vs Circle-5, Hissa No. 2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Pune. Village Mann Taluka, Mulshi, District- Pune 411057. Pan No. Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain-Ar (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav-Dr (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per:Shri Sonjoy Sarma, J.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune,(In Short, The Cit(A) In Relation To The Assessment Order Dated 23/03/2016 Passed By Dcit, Circle-5, Pune For The Assessment Year 2012-13.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred & The Hon/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Further Erred In Upholding/Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo/Ao In: 1 Transfer Pricing General Ground 1.1 Making An Addition To The Appellant’S Total Income Based On The Provisions Of Chapter X Of The Act & Have Further Erred In Fact & In Law In Not Providing Any Reasons To Show That The Conditions Mentioned In Clauses (A) To (D) Of Section 92C(3) Of The

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that adjustment made is not in accordance with the law. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

92D of the Act read with Rule 1OD of the Rules used for determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction of the Appellant; 3.4 violating the principle of “Rule of Consistency” while making the adjustment to the international transaction of provision of software development services and provision of marketing support services. 3.5 not allowing the variation/reduction

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

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, 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.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules used for determining the arm's-length price of the international transactions of the Appellant pertaining to provision of software development services to its AE; 2.7 not allowing the variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean while determining the arm's length price as envisaged under the proviso

M/S. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 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.376/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aabcr6361F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules used for determining the arm's-length price of the international transactions of the Appellant pertaining to provision of software development services to its AE; 2.7 not allowing the variation/reduction of 5 percent from the arithmetic mean while determining the arm's length price as envisaged under the proviso

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

u/s 92CA for 18/09/2017 Specified Domestic transaction by ACIT Date of Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before proceeding further we will reproduce the unamended Section 92BA (prior to 1/4/2017) as under : Meaning of specified domestic transaction. 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections