GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

2. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the Transfer Pricing (TP) addition of Rs.26,87,68,644/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of the international transaction of `Payment of Regional Service charges (RSC)’ except the component of I.T. Services. The assessee has also raised an additional ground reading as under: “The assessee submits that

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

2. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the Transfer Pricing (TP) addition of Rs.26,87,68,644/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of the international transaction of `Payment of Regional Service charges (RSC)’ except the component of I.T. Services. The assessee has also raised an additional ground reading as under: “The assessee submits that

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

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

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

price by passing necessary journal entries. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee. He noted that the assessee firm and the sister concern has purchased the lands for business purpose. However, as no business was carried on in these lands, the same was transferred to the partners which amounts to a transfer resulting

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. Further, the assessment proceeding of the years preceding to\nAY 2019-20 (i.e. AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19) were carried out by the\nLd. AO and the order under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act for\nthese years are duly passed. And, in all these years the query of\nunsecured loans was raised and that

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

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from

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

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from

VENTURA INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP-2)2, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 234B of the Act, as applicable, on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 7,90,08,000. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend one or more of the above Grounds of Appeal at any time before

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (υ) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

151(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further contended that there was tangible material before him to entertain a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The said belief was based on form No.3CEB of Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., the agreement between the assessee and Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment orders passed

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

151(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further contended that there was tangible material before him to entertain a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The said belief was based on form No.3CEB of Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., the agreement between the assessee and Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment orders passed

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered