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

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

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

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, cross objection filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-11(1), Pune अपीलाथ"/Appellant ….

239 of the paper book and Page 827 of the paper book), the company is engaged in ITeS and not in software development services. The business of the company comprises of application support, e-Iearning, digital consulting and IT consulting. All these services are in the nature of ITeS, and cannot thus be compared with the software development services provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion which has consequently resulted in adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Additional grounds of appeal 6 JCB India Limited, not a comparable company Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, JCB India Limited

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion which has consequently resulted in adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Additional grounds of appeal 6 JCB India Limited, not a comparable company Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, JCB India Limited

M/S. AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PRIAVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.610/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing. So, a person has to establish that the payment was made for providing benefits to it. Then, referring to adequacy of supporting evidences furnished by the assessee, the DRP also considered the remand report of Assessing Officer in this regard and noted that the assessee claimed that quotes were received from Chinese vendors through associated enterprise

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

transfer deeds duly signed had been impounded. From the facts of the case it is seen that the Hon'ble Court found that the documents which were impounded during survey action in a sister concern revealed the concealed particulars of income in the case of the said assessee and when the same was confronted by the AO by issuing

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

transferring in his name\nagainst the alleged sum given as advance.\n7. The ld.CIT(A) called for the remand report from the\nAssessing Officer on various issues mainly regarding the proper\nsanction u/s.151 of the Act, supply of correct reasons recorded,\nDIN not mentioned on the body of the assessment order and\nafter duly considering the comments of the assessee