DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

business support services to the appellant. At the end of transfer pricing proceedings, the Learned TPO undertook the TP adjustment by rejecting the choice of tested party. One of the reasons given by the TPO for rejecting the tested party is the different Financial Year adopted by the AE. It is seen from the details that the AE in China

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GALLAGHER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NFAC,, DELHI

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

transfer pricing study 4. erred in selecting/modifying the following inappropriate qualitative and quantitative, filters for provision of business support services Rejection of companies having turnover of 10 times lower or 10 times more than the turnover of the Appellant Rejection of companies having different financial year ending Rejection of companies having export earnings less than 75% of total earnings Rejection

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]

Transfer Pricing related grounds Ground No. 2: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP, erred in making a TP 2 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] adjustment of INR 27,05,17,208 to the income of the Appellant, by holding that the Appellant

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

Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules\")\nr.w.s. 92C(1) of the Act.\n5.2 The Ld. AR submitted that there is no other way to benchmark the\nimpugned transaction as against the benchmarking method applied by the\nassessee since either all the other prescribed methods for computation of\nALP are not possible to apply or they are not applicable

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

income of Rs.21,77,19,280/-. The case was taken\nup under CASS for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) of\nthe Act dated 22.09.2019 was issued to the assessee. Since the assessee company\nhad entered into certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises\n(AEs), the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer

PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

business or is a residuary income which is required to be taxed under the head 6 "income from other sources”. Similarly, even under the provision of Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act interest income earned by a co-operative society will be eligible for deduction only from its investment with another co-operative society. Thus, the AO appears to have

SHREENATH MHASKOBA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,PUNE vs. THE PCIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

business or is a residuary income which is required to be taxed under the head "income from other sources”. Similarly, even under the provision of Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act interest income earned by a co-operative society will be eligible for deduction only from its investment with another co-operative society. Thus, the AO appears to have allowed

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

transfer pricing addition of Rs.6,53,65,772/- to the total income of the Appellant, without appreciating the facts that the Appellant has availed and used these services for the purpose of its business

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

income of Embassy Office Parks REIT is exempt. The relevant paragraph related to this transaction of the submission of the assessee is reproduced as under : “Qubix Business Park Private Limited Qubix Business Park Private Limited was incorporated on 5 January 1999. The Company is primarily engaged in the business of development, leasing and maintenance of commercial real estate and related

SAR SENAPATI UMABAI DABHADE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

business or is a residuary income which is required to be taxed under the head "income from other sources". Similarly, even under the provision of Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act interest income earned by a co-operative society will be eligible for deduction only from its investment with another co-operative society. Thus, the AO appears to have allowed

GURUDEODATTA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PCIT IT-4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

business or is a residuary income which is required to be taxed under the head "income from other sources Similarly, even under the provision of Sec 80P(2)(d) of the Act interest income earned by a co-operative society will be eligible for deduction only from its investment with another co-operative society. Thus, the AO appears to have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Since the assessee entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. Ld. TPO made upward adjustments in respect of entire export of spares and components

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED, BARAMATI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Since the assessee entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. Ld. TPO made upward adjustments in respect of entire export of spares and components

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

transfer pricing purposes in seven\n(7) earlier years in view of inter alia binding order of the\nTribunal?\n\n(iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase and in law the Tribunal erred in passing the\nimpugned order dated 28th September 2022 purporting\nto rely on decision of Delhi High Court in the case

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 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. 12. It was also pointed that as per section 270A

KATERRA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalikaterra Technology Services Vs Acit, Circle-2, Llp, Unit No.301 & 302, Pune. 3Rd Floor, Nextgen Avenue Building, Off Senapati Bapat Road, Shivajinagar, Bhamburda, Tq. Haveli, Pune. Pan: Aarfk 3667 L Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anurag Shrivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Findings Of Ld.Drp-3, Mumbai-2, Dated 19.05.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “The Ld. Assessing Officer ["Ao"], Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ["Tpo"] & Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Cdrp") Erred In Law & In Fact In Assessing The Total Income Of Inr 1,71,54,680 As Against Returned Income Of Inr 88,61,750 As Computed By The Appellant In Its Return Of Income. Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of The International Transaction Relating To Information Technology Enabled Services ("Ites”) - Inr 82,92,925 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Ld.Ao Is Erroneous & Bad In Law; 2. The Ld. Ao/Tpo/ Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Upholding Katerra Technology Services Llp

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Ld.AO is erroneous and bad in law; 2. The Ld. AO/TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding Katerra Technology Services LLP transfer pricing addition of INR 82,92,925 on account of an adjustment to Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of the international transaction pertaining to ITeS by the Appellant

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

transfer pricing purposes in seven\n(7) earlier years in view of inter alia binding order of the\nTribunal?\n(iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase and in law the Tribunal erred in passing the\nimpugned order dated 28th September 2022 purporting\nto rely on decision of Delhi High Court in the case

ZS ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.211/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Zs Associates India Private V The Additional / Joint / Limited, S Deputy / Assistant Tower 3, World Trade Centre, Commissioner Of Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Income Tax, Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Pan:Aaacz2157Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade Date Of Hearing 11/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Assessment Order Dated 16.02.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017- 18, Emanating From Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 06.12.2021, Which In Turn Emanates From Draft Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) Of The Act

income the Hon'ble DRP, the learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in rejecting the TP report including economic and benchmarking analysis undertaken. 2 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 50,41,74,414/- to the international transaction relating to provision of business