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

143(3) and therefore, there was no scope for the PCIT to exercise the revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Further, the assessee has also placed reliance on the various decisions of the Pune Tribunal to argue that such interest is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7.1 In this context, it needs to be noted that

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

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. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

transfer of such immovable property. 4.4 This section came into the effect om 01.04.2014 as per the finance act 2013. Therefore the section raised by the appellant that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not attracted in her case, is hereby ejected. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO has rightly added difference in the computation

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

143 (3) read with section 144 C of the Income-tax Act by holding that the Transfer Pricing Officer for the Assessment year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 has accepted the transcation of payment of management fees paid to NLC by NLT and therefore the same having been made entirely for business consideration incurred wholly and exclusively

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)

2 and Point 3 above, the NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in making an adjustment under computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act as section 115JB is a self-contained code, and no adjustments other than those specifically prescribed under section 115JB of the Act are permissible. 5. Adjustment carried out under intimation under section 143

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)

143(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 vide order dated 02.10.2019. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny on account of large value of international transactions.Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) under section 92CA of the Act, to determine the Arms’ Length Price of International Transaction. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

143(2) 18/03/2016 Date of Amendment Omitting Specified Domestic 01/04/2017 Transaction u/s.92BA(i) Date of Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA for 18/09/2017 Specified Domestic transaction by ACIT Date of Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before proceeding further we will reproduce the unamended Section

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Section 260A of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) against the order dated\n28th September 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal (ITAT) for A.Y.2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-\n2018. The issue is in respect of transfer pricing adjustments.\nThe appeals were admitted on 11th April 2023 and in the\nthree appeals, the following three questions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Section 260A of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) against the order dated\n28th September 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal (ITAT) for A.Y.2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-\n2018. The issue is in respect of transfer pricing adjustments.\nThe appeals were admitted on 11th April 2023 and in the\nthree appeals, the following three questions

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 08.09.2022 accepting the returned income. 5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment record noted that the assessee has made investments with Co-operative Banks and has earned interest income of Rs.62,76,965/- on these investments which has been claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2

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

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 noted that the assessee has made investments with Co-operative Banks and has earned 3 interest income of Rs.2,89,55,990/- on these investments which has been claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made the adjustment without adopting any prescribed method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions stating that determining ALP without following prescribed methods is unsustainable in law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "143(2

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]

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 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

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

143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act making the proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP")/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/ AO have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

price fixed as per earlier agreement to purchase. In this case, the purchaser THPCL had agreed to purchase the land from the appellant and other co-owners for consideration of Rs.34,937/-, as per agreement dated 10/03/1971. The 10% of consideration was payable on the date of agreement, 50% was payable upon handing over of formal possession and the balance

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

143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. Since the assessee has entered into certain domestic transactions with its ‘Associate Enterprises

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

143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. Since the assessee has entered into certain domestic transactions with its ‘Associate Enterprises

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

143(3)\nr.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 08.05.2021 at assessed income of\nRs.137,72,15,970/- by making addition of Rs.109,99,25,961/- on account\nof transfer pricing adjustment to the income of Rs.27,72,90,010/- returned\nby the assessee. The assessee challenged the said addition before the\nTribunal by filing an appeal