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)

transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.7,80,17,976/-. 10.1 The basic facts pertaining this issue are that the Embassy Office Parks REIT holds 100% shares of Assessee company. 23 Embassy Office Parks REIT is a Trust. It is claimed that income of Embassy Office Parks REIT is exempt

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Transfer Pricing\ndocumentation, wherein the payment of royalty was aggregated\nwith the manufacturing activity for determining the arm's length\nprice.\n3.2 The Ld. AD pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\nin law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not\nfollowing the principle of consistency and rejecting the aggregation\napproach (which

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 adjustments related to royalty payments, denial of exemptions, and disallowances. The Revenue has also filed an appeal against certain relief granted by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee's aggregation approach for benchmarking royalty payments was incorrect and upheld the TPO's separate benchmarking. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal on the grounds

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LTD.,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

exempt income was earned by the Assessee during the year under consideration for computing the disallowance under section 14A The appellant company craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had shown corporate guarantee in the Transfer Pricing

SHRI GANESH SERVA SEVA SANGHA SHRIPUR,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

Exemption) examined the assessment records and issued following show cause notice to the assessee : “2 In the Assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act for AY 2016-17 completed on 27.06.2018 assessing the total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, it is found that the assessee has claimed credit for TDS of Rs.42,49,567 in the original return which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

Transfer Pricing Adjustment Rs. 2,56,70,426/- Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee went on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide its order dated 19/05/2022, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

Exempt Income\n8.\nDifference in ICDS adjustments reported in Form 3CD and ITR.”\n3.\nAccordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued\nand served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the requisite\ndetails. Since the assessee has entered into certain international transactions, the\nAssessing Officer referred the matter

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on his decision in preceding AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case involving the identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer (TPO) for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions. The TPO accepted the transaction of Payment of R&D expenses at\nALP. In the computation of total income, the assessee had claimed weighted\ndeduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,73,42,263/- on Research and\ndevelopment expenses. The assessee

DANA ANAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, AKURDI,PUNE

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm's length\nprice of the international transactions who proposed Nil adjustment. However, the\nAssessing Officer took Rs.1,64,17,30,653/- as variation with respect to the TP\nadjustment. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the draft assessment order\ndetermining the total income at Rs.338,51,08,520/- by making certain other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

YORK TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.125/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2015-16

Transfer Pricing adjustment u/s.92CA(3) of Rs.6,79,82,288/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, without rendering any finding on merits. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions

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

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

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

price at which the same are offered for sale, then the sale shall take place at the net sale value of the shares to be determined by ….‘. Obviously, this para is referring to the situation of transfer of shares between the shareholders post the JV agreement, as is instantly prevailing. The Valuer did not value the shares under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

price at which the same are offered for sale, then the sale shall take place at the net sale value of the shares to be determined by ….‘. Obviously, this para is referring to the situation of transfer of shares between the shareholders post the JV agreement, as is instantly prevailing. The Valuer did not value the shares under