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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

transfer pricing purposes in seven\n(7) earlier years in view of inter alia binding order of the\nTribunal?\n\n(iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase and in law the Tribunal erred in passing the\nimpugned order dated 28th September 2022 purporting\nto rely on decision of Delhi High Court in the case

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

transferred from the ITO, Ward\n2(2), Jalgaon to DCIT, Circle – 2, Jalgaon (now Circle – 1, Jalgaon) on 08.04.2019\nas per jurisdiction. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 20.05.2019 along with\nquestionnaire asking the assessee to file certain details regarding the scrutiny\nassessment.\nSecond notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 31.10.2019\nrequesting the assessee

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 adjustments ought not be made to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 7. Non grant of deduction under section 80-IAB on income from other sources and capital gains earned during the subject year The Hon’ble. DRP / NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in not granting a deduction under section

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) alongwith\nquestionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee asking the\nassessee to furnish certain details contained therein. The assessee\nsubmitted its reply in response to the said notice(s) which were verified by\nLd. Assessing Officer (“AO”) and placed on record. The Ld. AO noted that\nduring the year

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

142(1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld.AO observed that assessee has claimed capital expenditure on scientific research at ₹ 3,72,88,916/- u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Ld.AO also observed that during the year under consideration, there are no purchases, no stock in hand and no sales

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee fee came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee‘s own case for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The lead order was passed for the A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.1693/PUN/2018 holding that guarantee fee should be charged at 0.5%, which should be further increased by any expenditure actually incurred

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee fee came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee‘s own case for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The lead order was passed for the A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.1693/PUN/2018 holding that guarantee fee should be charged at 0.5%, which should be further increased by any expenditure actually incurred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Since the assessee entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. Ld. TPO made upward adjustments in respect of entire export

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED, BARAMATI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Since the assessee entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. Ld. TPO made upward adjustments in respect of entire export

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) were issued and served upon the assessee. 3.1 A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associate Enterprises during the relevant AY. Pursuant thereto

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(3)", "143(3)", "144C(3)", "144B", "40(a)(ia)", "14A", "40(a)(i)", "ICDS", "37", "40" ], "issues": "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning transfer pricing

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 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. 12. It was also pointed that as per section 270A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1), details of the unsecured loans taken have\nbeen called for & placed on record by the Assessing Officer.\nHowever, the assessee had not submitted the complete details as\ncalled for. Thus the contention of the assessee that it had submitted\nthe documents as required by the AO is found not acceptable. The\nAO failed to make further inquiries

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

142 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court in holding that where Assessing Officer made addition of 3 per cent in respect of bogus purchases over and above rate of gross profit of 4.63 per cent declared by assessee and passed assessment order

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO referring to the seized material at pages 16 and 17 found in the case of Kokani Group has observed that there are two lists in which on one side the payments through cheques are mentioned and on the other side payment in cash are mentioned and that in these lists at backside