COMPUTERLAND UK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT)-1,, 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 अपील सं. / Ita No. 2505/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Computerland Uk Limited C/O. Ventura India Private Limited Commerzone, Building No. 2 & 7, 1St Floor, Survey No.144 & 145, Samrat Ashoka Path, Off. Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 014. Pan : Aaecc4565H .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

152 to INR 4,88,88,532 by rejecting the analysis undertaken by the Appellant to determine arm's length price for its international transaction pertaining to provision of IT services for A Y 2013-14. 2. Non-consideration of comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report Erred in law on facts and in circumstances

M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD., (ERSTWHILE:M/S. BELLFLOWER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Pune (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Pune Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent

section 94B and the GAAR in the period anterior to their applicability, the obiter in the case of EKL Appliances (supra) also supports the view canvassed by the ld. CIT(A) in not approving the recharacterization of the transaction of debt into equity. Thus, the first issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is determined against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. BELLFLOWER PROPERTIES PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Pune (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Pune Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent

section 94B and the GAAR in the period anterior to their applicability, the obiter in the case of EKL Appliances (supra) also supports the view canvassed by the ld. CIT(A) in not approving the recharacterization of the transaction of debt into equity. Thus, the first issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is determined against

CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PVT LTD.,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)., , PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 133/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

152,857 under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961('the Act') in respect of Information Technology Enabled Services („ITes‟) provided by the Assessee to its Associated Enterprise („AE'). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in disregarding benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such

M/S. OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2520/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited. Pritech Park, Block-12, Unit-2, 5B & 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur, Marathahalli Ring Road, Bangalore-560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

152 of the paper book wherein revenue from sale of products is Nil and revenue is generated only from sale of service which is very much evident. Similarly at Page 158 of the paper book, it is specified about this company i.e. Jindal Intellicom Private Limited that in accordance with Accounting Standard 17- Segment Reporting, the company has only

RIETER MACHINE WORKS LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (IT), CIR-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rieter Machine Works Limited, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), C/O. Rieter India Private Limited, Circle-2, Pune 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Western Wing (A-2),Nyati Unitree, Samrat Ashok Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006 Pan : Aadcr1340N Appellant Respondent

price to the Indian entity, as has been tried to be projected but which is not actually the true state of affairs as has transpired from the above discussion, it would have satisfied this condition. 12. Now we move on to the second Table of the `IT Cost Reimbursement’ given on page 489 of the Paper book. This table deals

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

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 :

152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) - [(2021) 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur - Trib.)] (iii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iv) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.)] II. Proposition 2 : Where an application has been

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

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

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transferring the jurisdiction of the person, the transferee Income-\ntax Authorities as mentioned in section 116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 49(4) and 56(viia) of the Act, Ld. Counsel submitted that these provisions shall not be applicable to facts of the instant case as the Assessing Officer has co-terminus power and is free to take any action to ‘the Tapti’ for tax as per statute. 17.1 Subsequently, Ld. AR filed another note replying to the contention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since