MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

transfer pricing (TP) Audit, the erstwhile TPO, proposed an adjustment of Rs.17,64,79,234/- on account of import of raw material and other transaction (Manufacturing segment) and an adjustment of Rs.2,03,65,830/- on account of availability of consultancy services (Receipts of service) in his TP order dated 24th Oct 2016. Hence, a total TP adjustment of Rs.19

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) deleted the TP adjustment but granted partial relief on other additions. The AO passed the final order with certain additions, including disallowance of deduction u/s 80G and addition u/s 41(1).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the deduction claimed u/s 80G on account of CSR expenditure deserves to be allowed, following

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

154\nof the Act which was pending before the Ld. AO at the time of appellant\nproceedings before him. He therefore directed the Ld. AO to dispose of the\nsaid rectification application after due verification thereby allowing these\ngrounds of appeal raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.\n5.\nDissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

rectification applications filed which is subject matter of the JAO and does not have any bearing to the penalty proceedings by the Faceless Penalty Officer. Therefore, the further contention of the assessee to keep the penalty proceeding in abeyance is baseless. Accordingly, it is inferred that this is a fit case for levying penalty u/s. 270A of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return