DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.390,30,53,064/- after making the following disallowances to the returned income :- (a) Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.6,46,83,703/-. (b) Disallowance of EDP (Electronic Data Processing) expenses of Rs.42,49,840/-. (c) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Employees of Rs.22

M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.251/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

2. The first legal issue raised in this appeal is against non-passing of separate draft order pursuant to restoration by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 3. Briefly stated, the factual panorama of the case is that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.1,68,43,110/-. Certain international transactions were reported by the assessee in Form

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the 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.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

2). In case an objection is filed before the DRP, then the procedure is provided in ITA Nos.739 & 831/PUN/2015 6 sub-section (5) onwards of the said section with which, we are not concerned at present. In other words, the scheme of the Act is that a draft order is to be proposed by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the 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.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

2). In case an objection is filed before the DRP, then the procedure is provided in ITA Nos.739 & 831/PUN/2015 6 sub-section (5) onwards of the said section with which, we are not concerned at present. In other words, the scheme of the Act is that a draft order is to be proposed by the Assessing Officer

WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

2). ITA No.2767/PUN/2024 [A] 4…………………. …………… (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from

SKODA AUTO [ I ] P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

2] The appellant company submits that the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice of demand notice u/s. 156 and penalty notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) along with the assessment order dated 28.12.2011 instead of draft assessment order and hence, since the procedure laid down in section 144C was not followed by the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2098/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

2 of assessment order has tabulated the transactions entered into by the assessee during the year with several concerns. During the year under consideration, the assessee had provided certain automotive engineering and project related support services to Cosma India, for which it had charged sum of ₹ 62,12,060/-. TDS was deducted @ 10.506% on the income under the head „Engineering

KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.594/Pn/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kpit Technologies Limited, (Earlier Known As Kpit Cummins Infosystems Ltd.) Plot No.35/36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, Midc, Hinjewadi Phase 1 Rd, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaack7308N Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle -14, Pune

144C(13) of the Act, made addition on account of same at ₹ 74,38,465/-. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the same. 8. We find that similar issue of adjustment made on account of international transactions of interest received / receivable on loans extended to associated enterprises arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of passenger cars, engine and gearbox and has furnished its return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring loss at Rs.Nil after setting off of losses of Rs.22,68,34,573/-. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of passenger cars, engine and gearbox and has furnished its return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring loss at Rs.Nil after setting off of losses of Rs.22,68,34,573/-. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144C of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assesse has raised identical substantial grounds in all its three instant appeals. Its former twin substantial grounds in both these assessment years seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action invoking Section

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144C of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assesse has raised identical substantial grounds in all its three instant appeals. Its former twin substantial grounds in both these assessment years seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action invoking Section

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144C of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assesse has raised identical substantial grounds in all its three instant appeals. Its former twin substantial grounds in both these assessment years seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action invoking Section

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In respect of deduction u/s 10A/10AA in respect

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.74/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In respect of deduction u/s 10A/10AA in respect

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

144C and 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. As both the appeals are based on common facts, we are, ergo, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

144C and 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. As both the appeals are based on common facts, we are, ergo, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

ACIT CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Assessment Year : 2003-04 Acit, Circle- 1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad – 431201. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaecs3749M C.O. No.38/Pun/2011 (Arising Out Of Ita No.39/Pun/2011) Assessment Year : 2003-04 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (Saipl), A-1/1, Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Shendra, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaecs3749M बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle- 1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Aurangabad. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Cross-Appeals Under Consideration. The Assessee Filed A Cross Objection Vide C.O. No.38/Pun/2011 For The Assessment Year

2 of the Cross Objection are relevant in this regard. The same relate to the validity of the assessment order since the procedure laid down u/s 144C of the Act qua the requirement of making the draft assessment order, was not followed by the assessing authority. 4. Brief facts on this legal issue include that the assessee filed the return