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)

rectification order under section 154 of the Act be treated as bad in law, null and void and therefore the same be quashed. 2. Ground No. 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Ld. AO to reduce the loss on account of capital reduction amounting

KNORR-BREMSE TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-14,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16

rectification 14 Knorr Bremse Tech. application. Pursuant to the order passed u/s 154 read with 92CA(3) on 20-5- A.Y. 2015-16 2019, the TPO included another company, viz., M/s. Cigniti Technologies Ltd. in the final set of comparable, taking total number of comparable companies at 21 with median at 11th data point as the arm‟s length margin

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

154 dt.19.03.2015 wherein the total taxable income was determined at Rs.47,36,85,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 1.1. The Learned AO has erred in disallowing the depreciation of INR 2,253,214 under section

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

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

NALCO COMPANY ,USA,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 736/Pun/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

pricing) (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT') has erred in holding that the order dated 20 May 2016 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and in setting aside the same by invoking the powers u/s

NALCO COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 736/Pun/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

pricing) (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT') has erred in holding that the order dated 20 May 2016 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and in setting aside the same by invoking the powers u/s

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

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note that not only the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 10.3 to 10.3.5 has expressed agreement with the assessee’s contentions on all factual as well as legal aspects including that of “satisfaction” u/s. 14A (2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note that not only the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 10.3 to 10.3.5 has expressed agreement with the assessee’s contentions on all factual as well as legal aspects including that of “satisfaction” u/s. 14A (2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note that not only the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 10.3 to 10.3.5 has expressed agreement with the assessee’s contentions on all factual as well as legal aspects including that of “satisfaction” u/s. 14A (2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. ASHADEVI SUSHIL AGARWAL,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

rectification of the order of learned CIT(A) on the ground that she had agreed for the addition under a mistaken impression of fact and law and hence, it should not be considered as binding on her. In view of this position, the necessary relief may kindly be allowed. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing a deduction

MRS. ASHADEVI SUSHIL AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of Assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

rectification of the order of learned CIT(A) on the ground that she had agreed for the addition under a mistaken impression of fact and law and hence, it should not be considered as binding on her. In view of this position, the necessary relief may kindly be allowed. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing a deduction

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