M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

transfer of all significant risk and rewards of ownership of goods to buyer. The amount recognized as sale is exclusive of GST, interest and Dharmada, if any, charged in invoice Sales are net of VAT/GST. Sale is net of goods returns, if any. 14.2 The above accounting policy followed by the appellant regarding the recognition of revenue clearly suggests that

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

transfer pricing (TP) Audit, the erstwhile TPO, proposed an adjustment of Rs.17,64,79,234/- on account of import of raw material and other transaction (Manufacturing segment) and an adjustment of Rs.2,03,65,830/- on account of availability of consultancy services (Receipts of service) in his TP order dated 24th Oct 2016. Hence, a total TP adjustment of Rs.19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(l)(a) of the Act, for delay in filing of return. Though the assessee filed certain explanation, the AO overlooked it. The AO presumed that the assessee had no reason to offer for the delay, and therefore he was satisfied that the assessee had without any reasonable cause failed to file the return in time

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

transfer pricing.\nGround No. 6\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO\nerred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

271 of the Constitution. The phraseology employed in the Finance Acts of 15 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 1940 and 1941 showed that only the rates of income tax and supertax were to be increased by a surcharge for the purpose of the Central Government. In the Finance Act of 1958 the language used showed that income tax which

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]

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act.” 6 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] Brief facts of the case : 2. The Assessee is a Public Limited Company which is listed on Bombay Stock exchange and National Stock Exchange. It is engaged in the business of Software development, and related services. It operates from various locations in India and also

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

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

transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section 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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 information and documents as prescribed under section 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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 information and documents as prescribed under section 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

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

u/s 92CA of the Act. We appropriate method and proposed an upward adjustment of Rs.4,73,46,877/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The reasons given

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

u/s 92CA of the Act. We appropriate method and proposed an upward adjustment of Rs.4,73,46,877/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The reasons given

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

transferring the jurisdiction of the person, the transferee Income-\ntax Authorities as mentioned in section 116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 80G of the Act. However, in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed only Rs.1,65,88,790/-. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the differential amount of Rs.28,08,900/- should not be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 80G of the Act. However, in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed only Rs.1,65,88,790/-. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the differential amount of Rs.28,08,900/- should not be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given

BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 699/Pun/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tower S3, Level 1, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411013 Pan: Aadcm 9640 E . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Dt. 29/10/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] For The Ay 2017-18. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

penalty proceedings ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 16 BNY Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.699/PUN/2021 AY: 2017-18 under section 274 read with section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion on the computation of arm's length price as determined

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity