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

transfer pricing study report of assessee that the assessee had benchmarked international transactions by applying TNMM method as most appropriate method and PLI of assessee was shown at 16.72%, as against average PLI of the comparables at 2.77%. It was thus, concluded by the assessee that international transactions were at arm's length price. The TPO then analyzed the working

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

transfer pricing study report of assessee that the assessee had benchmarked international transactions by applying TNMM method as most appropriate method and PLI of assessee was shown at 16.72%, as against average PLI of the comparables at 2.77%. It was thus, concluded by the assessee that international transactions were at arm's length price. The TPO then analyzed the working

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

transfer pricing study report of assessee that the assessee had benchmarked international transactions by applying TNMM method as most appropriate method and PLI of assessee was shown at 16.72%, as against average PLI of the comparables at 2.77%. It was thus, concluded by the assessee that international transactions were at arm's length price. The TPO then analyzed the working

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

transfer pricing study report of assessee that the assessee had benchmarked international transactions by applying TNMM method as most appropriate method and PLI of assessee was shown at 16.72%, as against average PLI of the comparables at 2.77%. It was thus, concluded by the assessee that international transactions were at arm's length price. The TPO then analyzed the working

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

6. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions/disallowances of Rs.38,68,211/- & Rs.2,13,87,394/- respectively. However, the addition regarding disallowance of expenses on account of leasehold improvements of Rs.4,40,88,288/- was confirmed by observing as under :- “3.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

6. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions/disallowances of Rs.38,68,211/- & Rs.2,13,87,394/- respectively. However, the addition regarding disallowance of expenses on account of leasehold improvements of Rs.4,40,88,288/- was confirmed by observing as under :- “3.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant

EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application moved by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2432/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

viii. not granting risk adjustment for the differences in level of risk between the Appellant and the comparable companies. The Appellant prays that the benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant in the transfer pricing study ought to be accepted and the TP adjustment be deleted. 4 SA No. 70/PUN/2018 A.Y.2013-14 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

viii) of the Act the option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years and therefore the CPC grossly erred in not calculating the tax liability of the assessee as per section 115BAB of the Act and has arbitrarily computed tax @22% u/s.115BAA of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not considering the assessee being eligible u/s.115BAA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

Transfer Pricing Officer) on relying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the 2 case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 58 Taxmann.com 254" however, the facts of the case are not identical. Hence, the same should be treated as international transaction and should be; added to the total income of the assessee

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

10. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had asked for various details which the assessee has provided. Merely because the Assessing Officer has not passed a speaking order giving reasons

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

viii. Income from house property ix. Reduction in profit due to ICDS x. International Transaction(s) xi. Loss from currency fluctuations 3. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were duly served upon the assessee along with detailed questionnaire and the assessee made compliance to such notices. Since the assessee had entered into certain international transactions, the Assessing Officer (AO) referred

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

viii) insite pro\nregistration charges; (ix) user licence fees; (x) receipt of\nwarranty service; and (xi) receipt of training service,\nwith its AE. For the purpose of benchmarking, the\nassessee had aggregated all these transactions as\nrelated to its manufacturing activity and used TNMM as\nthe most appropriate method. The assessee worked out\nits margin from the manufacturing activity

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

viii) insite pro\nregistration charges; (ix) user licence fees; (x) receipt of\nwarranty service; and (xi) receipt of training service,\nwith its AE. For the purpose of benchmarking, the\nassessee had aggregated all these transactions as\nrelated to its manufacturing activity and used TNMM as\nthe most appropriate method. The assessee worked out\nits margin from the manufacturing activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. TRIZETTO SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, “D” Building, Weikfield, It-Citi Infopark, Nagar Road, Pune-411014. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aabct8862F Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Drp-3, Mumbai Dated 14.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- Whether The Drp Was Justified In Rejecting Eclerx Services Ltd. “1. Treating It As Kpo Without Appreciating That Kpo & Bpo Companies Both Fell Under Broader Ites Category & In Reality There Is Seamlessness In Ites Functions & Comparability Analysis Is Based On Functions, Assets & Risk. 2. Whether The Drp Was Right In Law & On Facts In Directing Tpo To Re- Compute The Operating Profit Margin Of The Assessee Without Considering The One Time Price Rebate Of Rs.5,32,10,455/-.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Bpo Services I.E. Remote Processing Applications Including

Transfer Pricing Officer on 01/01/2016. Moreover, the report of the TPO recommending filing of further appeal was received by e-mail on 07/04/2016. No hard copy has been received till date. The delay has been caused inadvertently and due to the above reasons. It is most humbly and with sincere apologies requested that the delay in filing appeal may kindly

M/S. BIRMANI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.113/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. M/S.Birmani Charitable The Commissioner Of Foundation, V Income Tax(Exemption), H 227, Deepak Mahal, Lam S Pune. Road, Deolali Camp, Dist.Nashik – 422401. Pan: Aaicb8213B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Filed In Form No.10Ab For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : M/S.Birmani Charitable Foundation [A]

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

BRAHMAN SABHA KARVEER,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

transfer or application at any time of the whole or any 13 ITA.No.795/PUN./2024 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

VALLABHDAS VALJI JILHA VACHANALAYA,JALGAON vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION - PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1423/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :- Vallabhdas Valjijilha The Commissioner Of Vachanalaya, Vs Income Tax- 227, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Exemption, Pune. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Aabtv0802C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Thecommissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Pune Has Erred In Rejecting The Application In Form 10Ab Under Section 80G(5) Of The Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya [A]

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; 4 Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya [A] (iii) the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste; (iv) the institution

ARTH FOUNDATION,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (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.2258/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2026-27 Arth Foundation, V Commissioner Of Income Flat No.3, Tulip Apartment, S Tax (Exemption), Pune. Suyojit Garden, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Aahta2324C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Trishala R Jain (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 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 01.08.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : ―1. The Learned Cit(E), Pune Has Erred In Rejecting The 1 Application Of The Appellant Trust Filed U/S 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act Without Considering The Merits Of The Case.

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