SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,28,30,770/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued notice u/s.143(2) dated 11/09/2017. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order

M/S. PRINCIPAL GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 482/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Principal Global Services Private Limited. Tower 6, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Hadapsar, Pune-411 028. … Pan : Aadcp7369P बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-4, Pune.

150/-. The assessee had undertaken international transactions with its associated enterprises at ₹ 76,15,55,466/-. The Assessing Officer thus, made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing

BIZ SECURE LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

pricing assessment for the A.Y.2013-14 accepted that the transfer of packaged software from Parwanoo unit to Pune Sales Depot was at ALP and hence no further addition could have been made.  The assessee also sold packaged software to third party customers from its Parwanoo unit and the AO accepted the eligibility of deduction u/s.80IC on profits earned from such third

BIZ SECURE LABS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

pricing assessment for the A.Y.2013-14 accepted that the transfer of packaged software from Parwanoo unit to Pune Sales Depot was at ALP and hence no further addition could have been made.  The assessee also sold packaged software to third party customers from its Parwanoo unit and the AO accepted the eligibility of deduction u/s.80IC on profits earned from such third

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BIZ SECURE LABS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

pricing assessment for the A.Y.2013-14 accepted that the transfer of packaged software from Parwanoo unit to Pune Sales Depot was at ALP and hence no further addition could have been made.  The assessee also sold packaged software to third party customers from its Parwanoo unit and the AO accepted the eligibility of deduction u/s.80IC on profits earned from such third

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

transfer pricing addition made thereon by holding the methods prescribed for determining the ALP are statutory prescription, it is absolutely essential for the TPO to compute the ALP by adhering strictly to one of such methods. Thus, adjustment made in Research and Development fees and Management fees without following prescribed method under law is deleted. Therefore, ground

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

transfer pricing addition made thereon by holding the methods prescribed for determining the ALP are statutory prescription, it is absolutely essential for the TPO to compute the ALP by adhering strictly to one of such methods. Thus, adjustment made in Research and Development fees and Management fees without following prescribed method under law is deleted. Therefore, ground

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

transfer pricing addition made thereon by holding the methods prescribed for determining the ALP are statutory prescription, it is absolutely essential for the TPO to compute the ALP by adhering strictly to one of such methods. Thus, adjustment made in Research and Development fees and Management fees without following prescribed method under law is deleted. Therefore, ground

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

transfer pricing issue was the most appropriate method to be applied, wherein the TPO 6 Cummins India Limited. had compared the profitability of export to associated enterprises undertaken by the assessee with domestic sales. The assessee is aggrieved by two aspects, wherein it has pointed out that because of controlled transactions, no comparison could be made and also because

P.N.GADGIL JEWELLERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1891/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

150 years. The assessee had shown total receipts from its operations at ₹ 503.30 crores and 3 had shown gross profit of ₹ 73.57 crores, which worked out to 14.62%. The net profit shown was at 4.70%. The Assessing Officer made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing

VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

150,000 raised towards provision of services for the period 01 January 2008 to 31 March 2008 (refer page No.534 of PB) 24.09.2008 Transfer Pricing Study Report-Bench marking of international transactions of provision of technical services. ( refer page no.537 to 673 of PB) 30.09.2008 VW India filed Accountant’s report in Form 3CEB for AY 2008-09 and reported

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

150/- per sq. mt. *66.91sq. mt.) We have attached herewith the rates of ready reckoner applicable to the property under consideration. (Annexure 4) Also, index II of the property is attached for considering the area. (Annexure 5) 5. We have computed capital gain considering the actual purchase value and sale value as per the registered deeds. Hence, indirectly

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

sections 28(ii)(a)/28(va), liable to be treated as ‗Business income‘. Basically, this question involves determination of two points - i. Is entire consideration only for transfer of shares? and ii. How is it taxable? We will espouse these two points in seriatim. I. IS ENTIRE CONSIDERATION ONLY FOR TRANSFER OF SHARES? and CO No.11/PUN/2022 5. In order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

sections 28(ii)(a)/28(va), liable to be treated as ‗Business income‘. Basically, this question involves determination of two points - i. Is entire consideration only for transfer of shares? and ii. How is it taxable? We will espouse these two points in seriatim. I. IS ENTIRE CONSIDERATION ONLY FOR TRANSFER OF SHARES? and CO No.11/PUN/2022 5. In order

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

150/- whereas the assessee company has registered the flats for a consideration of Rs.2,48,13,900/- on the basis of agreement value and therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are applicable. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions

M/S. EATON FLUID POWER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 535/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष"

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act, who in turn, passed an order dated 24-01-2013 u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act, proposing total adjustments of Rs.344,308,840/-. The AO thereafter, passed draft assessment order dated 26-03-2013 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act. Ld. AR for the assessee referring

M/S SEVEN STAR DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Seven Star Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Developers, S.No.14/1/2/3, Shop No.2, Shubham Residency, Dhayari, Pune-411041. Pan : Accfs1198P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandrakar Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2022 : आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4 Pune’S Order Dated 26.02.2020 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward-6(2),Pune/177/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That Instant Appeal Suffers From 378 Days Delay In Filing. I Find That The Cit(A) Has Passed His Lower

150/-, Mr. Desai could hardly dispute that the same represents less than 10% difference between the actual sale price vis-à-vis SRO rates of the twin flats in “Avnish Regency” project. 4. Mr. Desai vehemently argued at the Revenue’s behest that the foregoing twin tolerance margins do not carry any retrospective effect. I find no reason to accept