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

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

House, 3rd Floor, 2(1), Pune Lawani Plaza, B-Wing, Plot No.57/58, Sakorenagar, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411007 PAN: AANCS8819F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri Sangram Gaikwad Date of hearing : 25-08-2021 Date of pronouncement : 30-08-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate final

SHRIKANT VISHWANATH GOGATE,,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(K/Z) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Pricing) passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), dated 23.03.2018 as per the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (IT/TP), Pune erred in law and on facts in assuming Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the ITA, 1961 on the analogy that the order passed by the learned

REHAU POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 519/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

house arrangement for such services. The assessee has been receiving these services from its AE at budgeted cost. The ld. AR reiterated that benefit test is not to be applied in view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The ld. AR further pointed that the decision rendered in the case of Cranes Software International

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

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions entered into by it.\n3. The TPO during the course of TP proceedings noted that the assessee\ncompany had undertaken the following international transactions:\nS. No.\nNature of transaction\nAmt as per 3CEB\n(in Rs)\nMethod\n1\nSale of Goods

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

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

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

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

Housing Society. During the year under consideration, a sale deed was registered which was signed by the assessee and it was executed in favour of Bhavin Enterprises. When this information was received by the AO, he carried out the reassessment proceedings which culminated into the impugned addition. Now the facts narrated by the ld. Counsel for the appeal indicate that

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

House, Behind Kankria Niwas, Camp Road, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik PAN : AFIPM3316E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sanket M. Joshi Respondent by Shri Pankaj Garg Date of hearing 23-01-2019 Date of pronouncement 25-01-2019 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

price and therefore the profits during the relevant accounting year. The situation emerges that the assessee has received whatever consideration was due in a substantive manner and the assessee cannot be allowed to take the plea that since those cheques were dishonoured within the meaning of the agreement, the agreement is invalidated. As per provisions of section

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

transfer of land and ii) building as part of the business income instead of capital gains, applying a higher tax rate applicable to the business income iii) instead of capital gains Treating rental income from these assets as business income iv) as against Income from House Property 7.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

transfer of land and ii) building as part of the business income instead of capital gains, applying a higher tax rate applicable to the business income iii) instead of capital gains Treating rental income from these assets as business income iv) as against Income from House Property 7.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision

M/S. FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD, (FROMERLY KNOWN AS SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, 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. 1695/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Fis Solutions (India) Private Limited. Formerly Known As Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited. Westend Centre One, Survey No. 169/1, Sector Ii, Aundh, Pune-411 007. Pan : Aaace7476K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

property led solutions and end-to end solutions, strategic acquisitions and financial year 2010-11 is an exceptional year of operation of Persistent Systems. We find support from the decision of 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (supra) at para 17 Page 13 of the paper book as under: “17. Persistent Systems Ltd. 17.1.1 This company was selected

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VISTEON ENGG. CENTER (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustments. 13. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 14. The Appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” 4. Shri Ketan Ved appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature. In respect of ground

VISTEON ENGINEERING CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustments. 13. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 14. The Appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” 4. Shri Ketan Ved appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature. In respect of ground

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2549/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

property rights in the software developed by the assessee vest in the AE. With the above understanding of the functional profile of the assessee under this transaction, we now proceed to examine the comparability or otherwise of the companies under challenge. 8 BMC Software India Private Limited (i) Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. : 8.1. The TPO treated Bodhtree Consulting

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

house adviser for sales (consignment stock, agent\nagreement, delivery conditions, etc.) and on ad-hoc issues;\nCoordination regarding group tax issues such as withholding\ntaxes on royalties and dividends, permanent establishment\nissues, tax implications of M & A activities, transfer pricing, etc.;\nMonitoring of worldwide tax rate and optimization of tax burden\nfor Semperit's local entities;\nCoordination on local

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

house other than the new asset. Apart from the above no other conditions or restrictions have been prescribed for allowing or disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Thus, the relationship between the buyer and seller of the property is immaterial for allowing the exemption claimed by the assessee. Further, there is no explicit restriction in section

MANJREKAR FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2338/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Manjrekar Foundation, V Cit Exemption, Near Goodluckchowk, Decan S Pune. Gymkhana, Bhandarkar Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aactm7144D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.08.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : ―1. The Ld. Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Application Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G As Non- Maintainable On The Ground Of Being Filed Beyond The Statutory Period As Provided In Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G (5) & Thereby Rejecting The Same Without Going Into The Merits.

transfer or application at any time of the whole or any part of the income or assets of the institution or fund for any purpose other than a charitable purpose; (iii) the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste; (iv) the institution or fund maintains regular accounts