SAR SENAPATI UMABAI DABHADE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee furnished the requisite details/documents from time to time. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) after verification of the details/documents furnished by the assessee and perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, accepted the “Nil” income returned by the assessee thereby allowing the deduction

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

SHREENATH MHASKOBA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,PUNE vs. THE PCIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal (Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

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

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.11.2021 accepting the returned income. 5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment record

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

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee to which, the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted from the capital account of the partner

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

142(1) of the Act, the assessee claimed that on 12.08.1997 unregistered agreement was entered into with the seller of the property and part consideration was paid through banking channel but the balance amount was payable since some contractual obligations on part of the seller regarding updation of land revenue records with names of original owners and obtaining relevant permissions

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) and section 142(1) of the Act. During the years\nunder consideration, Assessee had entered into various\ninternational transactions with its Associated Enterprise(s) in\nthe course of its business. Assessee had paid royalty\namounting to Rs.54,30,69,318/-for A.Y.2015-2016,\nRs.46,99,15,361/- for A.Y.2016-2017 and Rs.51,26,51,778/-\nfor

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) and section 142(1) of the Act. During the years\nunder consideration, Assessee had entered into various\ninternational transactions with its Associated Enterprise(s) in\nthe course of its business. Assessee had paid royalty\namounting to Rs.54,30,69,318/-for A.Y.2015-2016,\nRs.46,99,15,361/- for A.Y.2016-2017 and Rs.51,26,51,778/-\nfor

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

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

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

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

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

GURUDEODATTA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PCIT IT-4, PUNE

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

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details partly. However, due to time constraint the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.09.2022 accepting the returned income. 5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT on perusal

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has booked its sales