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

153 are quite compartmentalized. To avoid any overlapping of these provisions, the legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to provide for an independent effect, to be given under Section 153A read with Section 153C by incorporating the "non-obstante" clause, in these provisions, which carves out an exception to any normal/regular action being resarted under Section

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

price and MRP of various types of liquor\nalong with the working of GP separately for country liquor and the IMFL. In view\nof said facts, I have left with no option but to adopt reasonable average G.P of\n10.00% in absence of separate details thereof.”\n5. After deducting the GP already shown by the assessee at Rs.79

ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2014 applied CUP method and determined the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of service fees at Nil as against Rs.3,45,55,434/- determined

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2014 applied CUP method and determined the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of service fees at Nil as against Rs.3,45,55,434/- determined

M/S. EATON INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.536/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd., 145, Off Mumbai Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pimpri, Pune – 411018 …. Pan: Aabce4955C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act, who in turn, passed order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 28.01.2013 proposing an upward adjustment of ₹ 21,36,68,000/- to the international transactions of manufacturing business in respect of the truck components unit and an adjustment of ₹ 77,78,613/- to the international transactions

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

153 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi)\n)iv) S&P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of\nIncome-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyderabad - Trib.)\n7.\nAs regards the other grounds raised by the assessee relating to non-\ngranting of allowance of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward\nbusiness losses (Ground no. 2) and non-granting of credit of advance

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

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 of the case, in proposing an upward adjustment to the total income of the appellant as under a. Adjustment of INR 1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.607/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 10, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Highway, Dapodi, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune - 411012 Pan: Aaccs6638K

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act and the TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 29.01.2013, wherein he proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 56,12,71,932/- in respect of distribution segment, ₹ 12,42,71,340/- in respect of Management service fees payment and ₹ 39,72,50,242/-, totaled

SANDVIK ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.607/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 10, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Highway, Dapodi, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune - 411012 Pan: Aaccs6638K

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act and the TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, dated 29.01.2013, wherein he proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 56,12,71,932/- in respect of distribution segment, ₹ 12,42,71,340/- in respect of Management service fees payment and ₹ 39,72,50,242/-, totaled

KOHLER POWER (I) P LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS LOMBARDINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,),AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2467/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2014 applied CUP method and determined the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of service fees at Nil as against Rs.3,45,55,434/- determined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1458/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

transfer pricing adjustment was made in the hands of assessee. Sub-section (4) to section 153 of the Act further lays down that where reference was made under section 92CA(1

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 :

section 153 (1) of the IT Act. 3. The learned Assessing Officer acting under directions of leaned Dispute Resolution Panel erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.4,00,00,000 by holding that the appellant’s specified domestic transactions relating to procurement of drawing and design services, erection and commissioning charges and purchase

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

WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.” 2.5 Thus, as per the Section 144C, which is applicable in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has to first issue a draft Assessment Order specifying

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2744/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Precision Camshafts Limited, V Assessment Unit, E-102/103, Akkalkot Road S Income Tax Department Midc, Solapur – 413006. (National Faceless Maharashtra. Assessment Center), Jurisdiction : Pne C(1), Range 63, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax („Dcit‟), Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 Dated 24.10.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Dispute Resolution Panel‟S Order Passed Under Section 144C(5) Of

153 accordingly, the said asst, order is null and void. B. Transfer Pricing Issues 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO /Ld. TPO has erred in proposing TP adjustment to the international transaction of corporate guarantee amounting to INR 21,46,000 to the total income by rejecting TP analysis

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

153 of the Act. Consequently, the final\nassessment order is time barred and deserves to be quashed.\n4. The Hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the action of the AO /\nTPO ignoring the fact that there was no intention by the Appellant\nto shift profits outside India.\n5. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding/confirming the action

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

1) of the Act were issued\nand served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the requisite\ndetails. Since the assessee has entered into certain international transactions, the\nAssessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for\ndetermining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The\nTPO vide order dated

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

1. The impugned order of the ld. Assessing officer (AO) to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of case and liable to be quashed. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP) erred in upholding the adjustment