MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

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

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

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

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Transfer Pricing Proceedings, the TPO carried out fresh search of comparables using the same criteria as used by the assessee while bench marking the transaction. The TPO had not rejected any of the comparables selected by the assessee. However, the TPO had added certain comparables to the list of comparables on the ground that those comparables were functionally comparable

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ; (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing expenditure of a capital nature incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, ceases to be used in a previous year for scientific research related

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

35,736\nTNMM\n2\nCommission earned\n1,73,33,580\nTNMM\n3\nReimbursement\nof\nexpenses\n27,11,487\nCUP\nreceived\n4\nCost sharing charges\n67,158,603\nTNMM\n5\nPurchase of traded goods\n32,51,47,883\nRPM\n6\nPurchase of Raw material\n5,68,30,646\nTNMM\n7\nPurchase of Fixed Assets\n13,92,23,545\nTNMM\n8\nPayment

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

35. We find the Ld. CIT granted registration u/s 12A only from the date of the application i.e. 10.02.2006 vide order dated 05.09.2007. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT read as under: “In view of ITAT’s order holding that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee w.e.f

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

35. We find the Ld. CIT granted registration u/s 12A only from the date of the application i.e. 10.02.2006 vide order dated 05.09.2007. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT read as under: “In view of ITAT’s order holding that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee w.e.f

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

35. We find the Ld. CIT granted registration u/s 12A only from the date of the application i.e. 10.02.2006 vide order dated 05.09.2007. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT read as under: “In view of ITAT’s order holding that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee w.e.f

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

35. We find the Ld. CIT granted registration u/s 12A only from the date of the application i.e. 10.02.2006 vide order dated 05.09.2007. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT read as under: “In view of ITAT’s order holding that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee w.e.f

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

35. We find the Ld. CIT granted registration u/s 12A only from the date of the application i.e. 10.02.2006 vide order dated 05.09.2007. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT read as under: “In view of ITAT’s order holding that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee w.e.f

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

35. We find the Ld. CIT granted registration u/s 12A only from the date of the application i.e. 10.02.2006 vide order dated 05.09.2007. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT read as under: “In view of ITAT’s order holding that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee w.e.f

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

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order and DRP’s Order. The main contention of the TPO/DRP is that assessee has not demonstrated that the services have been availed. However, the TPO has accepted that Assessee had filed copies of Emails, copies of Invoices, copy of Agreement. Thus, on one hand, TPO says that no documents were provided, whereas on the other

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

M/S VODAFONE GLOBAL SERVICES P LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

35,15,54,470 as against income of Rs. 18,83,22,690 (as per the return of income filed by the Appellant on 30 November 2018) making a Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 16,32,31,780. B. Transfer Pricing adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the Act in respect of international transaction of provision of information technology

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

10,97,715/-\nincurred by it, and the stand taken by the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP in\nthis regard is illegal, incorrect, erroneous and misconceived.\n8.3 The Appellant submits that the Ld. AO be directed to grant\nweighted deduction on the amount of expenditure incurred by the\nAppellant u/s 35/2AB) of the Act and to re-compute its total income

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

10,97,715/-\nincurred by it, and the stand taken by the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP in\nthis regard is illegal, incorrect, erroneous and misconceived.\n\n8.3 The Appellant submits that the Ld. AO be directed to grant\nweighted deduction on the amount of expenditure incurred by the\nAppellant u/s 35/2AB) of the Act and to re-compute its total

KATERRA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalikaterra Technology Services Vs Acit, Circle-2, Llp, Unit No.301 & 302, Pune. 3Rd Floor, Nextgen Avenue Building, Off Senapati Bapat Road, Shivajinagar, Bhamburda, Tq. Haveli, Pune. Pan: Aarfk 3667 L Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anurag Shrivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Findings Of Ld.Drp-3, Mumbai-2, Dated 19.05.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “The Ld. Assessing Officer ["Ao"], Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ["Tpo"] & Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Cdrp") Erred In Law & In Fact In Assessing The Total Income Of Inr 1,71,54,680 As Against Returned Income Of Inr 88,61,750 As Computed By The Appellant In Its Return Of Income. Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of The International Transaction Relating To Information Technology Enabled Services ("Ites”) - Inr 82,92,925 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Ld.Ao Is Erroneous & Bad In Law; 2. The Ld. Ao/Tpo/ Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Upholding Katerra Technology Services Llp

Transfer Pricing documentation („TP documentation'); 4. The Ld. AO/TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in disregarding certain quantitative filters applied by the Appellant in the TP documentation and applying certain additional quantitative filters. 5. The Ld. AO/TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in law by conducting a fresh search process and adding new set of comparable companies