RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

v. DIT [IT Appeal No. 27 (Asr.) of 2015] 8 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR had relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the assessee paid the consideration through cheques and also obtained the possession of the property in question. The claim

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

v) of the Act. It is settled law that part performance of a contract is a transfer within the meaning of provisions of section 2(47) of the Act. Accordingly attracts Long Term Capital Gains on transfer of land during the year under consideration. 03.4 It is sufficient if in the relevant accounting year profits arise out of the sale

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

47)(v) of the Act. He submitted that whichever stand one adopts whether conversion into stock or whether transfer of agricultural land, the issue of capital gain on sale has to be considered in assessment year 2011-12. He submitted that on that date the land was agricultural land under cultivation situated beyond municipal limits. Since the agricultural land

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)

transfer pricing adjustments ought not be made to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 7. Non grant of deduction under section 80-IAB on income from other sources and capital gains earned during the subject year The Hon’ble. DRP / NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in not granting a deduction under section

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

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/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]

V A K Software & Exports Ltd. 11.97% 9% 10.07% Cigniti Technologies Ltd. 18.24% — — Zest Solutions Ltd. 8.48% — 11.84% Nintec Systems Ltd. 19.00% — — Sagarsoft (India) Ltd. 3.22% — — 22 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] Tata Elxsi Ltd. 25.16% — — Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd 3.68% 5.47% 5.69% InfoBeans Technologies Ltd 27.00% — — Rheal Software Ltd 2.66% — — Systems International Ltd. - Information Technology Services & Products

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 :

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 for the purposes of business. Hence no addition was held to be sustainable for the assessment year

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) of the Act were served.\nThe assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale\nof Internal Combustion Engines and is a 51% subsidiary of\nCummins Inc. USA. There were certain international\ntransactions and arms's length price (ALP) of such\ntransactions was required to be determined. With the\nnecessary approval of PCIT, reference was made to the Ld.\nTransfer

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) of the Act were served.\nThe assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale\nof Internal Combustion Engines and is a 51% subsidiary of\nCummins Inc. USA. There were certain international\ntransactions and arms's length price (ALP) of such\ntransactions was required to be determined. With the\nnecessary approval of PCIT, reference was made to the Ld.\nTransfer

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

2) of\nthe Act dated 22.09.2019 was issued to the assessee. Since the assessee company\nhad entered into certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises\n(AEs), the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions entered into by it.\n3. The TPO during

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

section 2(47) of the I.T. Act have no application in relation to the asset which is held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the issue of transfer in relation to the immovable property held as stock-in-trade has to be decided under the general law. As the year of transfer is C.O. No.15/PUN/2023 important to decide the year

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

section 2(47) of the I.T. Act have no application in relation to the asset which is held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the issue of transfer in relation to the immovable property held as stock-in-trade has to be decided under the general law. As the year of transfer is C.O. No.15/PUN/2023 important to decide the year

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

47,24,293/- being sub-total (B)] that qualifies for deduction u/s 35(1)(iv). We order accordingly. 18. The Ld. DR took strong exception to the claim of the Id. AR for granting deduction of the capital expenditure on scientific research and development incurred outside India u/s 35(1)(iv). He submitted that no such ground has been taken

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

47,24,293/- being sub-total (B)] that qualifies for deduction u/s 35(1)(iv). We order accordingly. 18. The Ld. DR took strong exception to the claim of the Id. AR for granting deduction of the capital expenditure on scientific research and development incurred outside India u/s 35(1)(iv). He submitted that no such ground has been taken

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

47,24,293/- being sub-total (B)] that qualifies for deduction u/s 35(1)(iv). We order accordingly. 18. The Ld. DR took strong exception to the claim of the Id. AR for granting deduction of the capital expenditure on scientific research and development incurred outside India u/s 35(1)(iv). He submitted that no such ground has been taken

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation 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

47. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the ratio of decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) have no application to the facts of the case, as the issue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was regarding interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (8) of section

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

47. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the ratio of decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) have no application to the facts of the case, as the issue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was regarding interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (8) of section