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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, 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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts that transfer pricing adjustment to the international transactions of the Appellant and corporate tax adjustment made is on account of difference of opinion as to application of selection criterion for selection of comparable companies, incoherent approach, interpretation of the provisions, interpretation of case laws

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

271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustments has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc and not due to concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the learned Assessing Officer also erred in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant in respect of voluntary adjustment made

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

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

transfer deeds duly signed had been impounded. From the facts of the case it is seen that the Hon'ble Court found that the documents which were impounded during survey action in a sister concern revealed the concealed particulars of income in the case of the said assessee and when the same was confronted by the AO by issuing

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) without considering the fact that the transfer pricing adjustment is on account of difference of opinion pertaining to selection criteria adopted for identifying the comparable companies. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing

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

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment arisen on account of difference of opinion on inclusion of comparables by the appellant and revenue cannot lead to a conclusion of furnishing of inaccurate particulars and thus the penalty levied in this regard, u/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

SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel

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

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5