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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

C” BENCHES : : PUNE\n\nBEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\nITA No.632/PUN/2022\n Assessment Year : 2018-19\n\nCummins India Limited,\nTower A, 5th Floor,\nCummins India Office\nCampus, Balewadi,\nPune, Maharashtra\nPAN: AAACC 7258 B\nAppellant\nVs.\nACIT, Circle-1(1), Pune\nRespondent\n\nITA No.1256/PUN/2023\n Assessment Year : 2018-19\n\nDCIT

SEQUENCE DESIGN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2106/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

13,29,97,947/-), instead of the amount of voluntary transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 4,07,42,345/- in respect of earlier years The Appellant prays leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend, substitute, or delete grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transferring the jurisdiction of the person, the transferee Income-\ntax Authorities as mentioned in section 116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer under sub- Section (3) of Section 92CA and even under Section 144C(8). The DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order and wherefore the word eligible assessee in Clause (1) and (15) and the proposed draft order referred to under Clause 144c(1) and (8) will have to be given full

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

13]‖ The aforesaid explanation makes it clear that insertion of Explanation retrospectively was with sole object of clear the intention of the legislature and make it free from any misinterpretation. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the assessee in claiming education cess as expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act nor any malafide is established as when

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

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

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Capgemini Technology V The Assistant Services India Limited[As S Commissioner Of Income Successor In Interest Of Tax-1(1)(1), Pune. Erstwhile Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited-Since Amalgamated], Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District- Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacck8280B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The

13), read with section 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order under section 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions of section 144C(1), deserved to be set aside. In the case of Vedanta Ltd. v. ACIT 126 taxmann.com 283 (Delhi - Trib.), the ITAT held that Draft/final assessment order framed in name of non-existent entity is void

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]

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 and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Assessment Unit (‘AU’) has erred in passing the draft assessment M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] order without 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

13 (Pune\nTribunal)\n6.4 The Ld. AR further placed before us the following case laws\nsupporting the above contention of the assessee:\n(i) Disney Broadcasting (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of\nIncome Tax [2024] 163 taxmann.com 40 (Mumbai-Trib)\n(ii) Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 290 (Mumbai-Trib

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to the allocation of RHQ charges.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144C(5)", "143(3)", "144C(13)", "92CA(3)", "254", "144B", "144C(1)", "92C", "10AB", "10B", "274", "271(1)(c

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

1) of the Act, then such a determination of ALP frustrates the transfer\npricing addition and deleted the transfer pricing addition made thereon by holding\nthe methods prescribed for determining the ALP are statutory prescription, it is\nabsolutely essential for the TPO to compute the ALP by adhering strictly to one of\nsuch methods. Thus, adjustment made in Research

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GALLAGHER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NFAC,, DELHI

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

13 percent mark-up. 2.1 The Assessee has selected TNMM as the most appropriate method for deciding the Arm’s Length Price of the International Transaction. The Profit Level Indicator selected was operating profit upon operating cost. The TPO in the order has mentioned that the profit level indicator of the Assessee [OP/OC] was 13.3%. The Transfer Pricing Officer rejected

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

transfer of all significant risk and rewards of ownership of goods to buyer. The amount recognized as sale is exclusive of GST, interest and Dharmada, if any, charged in invoice Sales are net of VAT/GST. Sale is net of goods returns, if any. 14.2 The above accounting policy followed by the appellant regarding the recognition of revenue clearly suggests that

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

transfer of all significant risk and rewards of ownership of goods to buyer. The amount recognized as sale is exclusive of GST, interest and Dharmada, if any, charged in invoice Sales are net of VAT/GST. Sale is net of goods returns, if any. 14.2 The above accounting policy followed by the appellant regarding the recognition of revenue clearly suggests that

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

C” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर 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

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

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