EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

revised to ₹ 1.69 crores. The DRP upheld the reduction of deduction under section 10AA of the Act. The DRP also upheld the disallowance of expenditure in relation to purchase of off-the-shelf software under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, holding the same to be in the nature of royalty paid for use of license on which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

u/s 14A rwr 8D when the Assessee had earned huge amount of exempt income with meager expenses? 8. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 4. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

u/s 14A rwr 8D when the Assessee had earned huge amount of exempt income with meager expenses? 8. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 4. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

Transfer Pricing Order u/s.92CA(3) ii. Capital expenditure Rs.10,35,850/- iii. Warranty provision Rs.1,01,98,196/- iv. Provision for leave Rs.31,99,327/- Rs.43,20,81,216/- encashment Business Income Rs.36,72,57,361/- Less: Set off Business loss A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 Rs.28,69,04,753/- and unabsorbed depreciation Rs.8

M/S. A B KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ab Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aarfa5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune

revised grounds of appeal, additional evidence in the form of documents relating to provisions of knowledge based design services before the CIT(A), hence remand report was called for. The Assessing Officer submitted remand report reiterating findings in the assessment order, against which the assessee filed written submissions. The CIT(A) from para 4.7 at page 39 of appellate order

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

revision u/s 263 cannot be done in his case. 06. On perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for verification of "Capital Gain Deduction Claims", therefore, the every deduction claimed by the assessee for arriving at Capital Gains required thorough examination by the AO. However, prima facie

UBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD),PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE - 1, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

U/s 263 the order has to be erroneous as well as prejudicial. If both the conditions 9 are not satisfied the order cannot be revised. Please refer Malabar ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A] Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bombay).” Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revise the same order u/s 263 of the Act.\n1.3 However, it should be considered that, the power of the\ncommissioner u/s 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory\njurisdiction. The same is there to correct an error which is prejudicial\nto the interest of revenue. The wording of sec 263 of the Act states\nthat

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

u/s 142, there is no specific question. 5.3 Thus, it can be seen that the AO had not asked any question regarding the Loss claimed by the assessee. The Assessee has shown the Loss as under in the Return of Income : 36 Rates and taxes, paid or payable to Government or any local body (Excluding taxes o income) I Union

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PVT. LTD., (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GRUPO ANTOLIN PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the facts of the case. 7. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 3. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- 1:0 Re.: Not restricting the amount of transfer pricing adjustment to the ‘transactions’ between Associated enterprises

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

revision proceedings before the Ld. PCIT : 5 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.7 Before the Ld. PCIT, challenging the validity of proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the assessee’s husband, Mr. Sandeep Satav has been substantiated by production of above details/documents and hence the assessment order is neither erroneous

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

revision u/s 263 of the Act. While examining the issue, the Hon'ble court made distinction among following situations: (1) Situation where no enquiry was conducted by the AO: The Hon'ble court held that in such situation, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made by observing as under. *11. The Assessing Officer is both

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

u/s 263 of the IT Act is not exercisable under certain circumstances. In this regard, we may now refer the relevant provision of section 263(1) explanation 1(c) which reads as follows :- “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263(1)--- (a)-- (b)-- (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer

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. 263

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. 263

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

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

price determined by TPO. Then, our attention was drawn to Instruction No.3/2016, dated 10.03.2016, wherein it is clearly provided that the Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction in three situations mentioned in the said Circular i.e. before making reference to the TPO. In this regard, the Ld. AR referred