DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee also filed Cross Objections against the appeals of Revenue. 2. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue relating to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee also filed Cross Objections against the appeals of Revenue. 2. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue relating to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bom), wherein it was held that draft assessment order is necessary in terms of section 144C(1) of the Act before the Assessing Officer can proceed to pass final assessment order. It was held that in the absence thereof, order is without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the facts before it in Pr.CIT

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

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bom), wherein it was held that draft assessment order is necessary in terms of section 144C(1) of the Act before the Assessing Officer can proceed to pass final assessment order. It was held that in the absence thereof, order is without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the facts before it in Pr.CIT

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

68,43,110/-. Certain international transactions were reported by the assessee in Form No. 3CEB. The AO referred the matter of determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of such transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Vide order dated 18-01-2016, the TPO recommended transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.5,35,19,469/-. The AO passed the draft

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

section 144C(11) of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Erroneous denial of prepaid tax credit pertaining to the Amalgamating Entity 3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO has erred in denying credit of prepaid taxes amounting to INR 1,35,68

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

3) without passing Draft Assessment Order u/s. 144C(1) is in violating of provisions of section 144C and hence, such final assessment order is unsustainable. 7. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held : “11 It must be noted that in respect

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

3) of the Act by making an addition of ₹ 62,12,060/- and by assessing the assessee‟s total income at ₹ 12,38,01,862/- 7. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was foreign company and hence, was „eligible assessee‟ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. The CIT(A) further noted that the Assessing Officer

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

3 pursuant to merger with Capgemini Technology Services India Limited w.e.f. 1 April, 2020. These jurisdictional issues have not been discussed in the Draft Assessment Order dated 21.09.2023. It is not clear whether these objections were taken by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. The Panel notes that Show Cause Notices were issued to the assessee

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

3) r.w.s. 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

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

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

144C(5) of the Act dated 19 February 2021, on the following SAS Research and Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A] grounds, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other: Grounds of appeal pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment: 1. Inappropriate transfer pricing adjustment of INR 8,25,09,762 even though the pricing of all international transactions

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)

144C(1) of the IT Act. Since according to the calculation of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has no brought forward loss the assessee company reduced business loss of Rs.139 crores from business profits as per clause 3 of Explanation below section 115JB(2) of the IT Act. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer