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]

Transfer Pricing Proceedings, the TPO carried out fresh search of comparables using the same criteria as used by the assessee while bench marking the transaction. The TPO had not rejected any of the comparables selected by the assessee. However, the TPO had added certain comparables to the list of comparables on the ground that those comparables were functionally comparable

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)

24 10.2 The Assessee has borrowed Rs.3,17,99,00,000/- Loan from its parent Embassy Office Parks REIT. The assessee has entered into Loan Agreement dated 11.03.2019 with Embassy Officer Parks REIT. The relevant paragraph of the Transfer Pricing Report is reproduced here as under : “b. Finance cost paid to related party Qubix and Embassy Office Parks REIT ('ÉOP

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 :

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on 18/09/2017 for determination of Arm’s length Price of Specified Domestic Transactions. The TPO passed the order on 30/10/2018 suggesting adjustment of Rs.4 crores. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Dispute resolution Panel (DRP). The Assessee had taken a legal ground of jurisdiction of the TPO before the DRP. The Assessee relied

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 292BB of the Act in our opinion cannot come to the rescue of the TPO this being a jurisdictional issue. Since in the instant case, despite number of letters addressed by the assessee to the TPO to drop the proceedings on the ground that the same are being proposed on a non-existing company, the TPO passed the order

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order and DRP’s Order. The main contention of the TPO/DRP is that assessee has not demonstrated that the services have been availed. However, the TPO has accepted that Assessee had filed copies of Emails, copies of Invoices, copy of Agreement. Thus, on one hand, TPO says that no documents were provided, whereas on the other

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Transfer Pricing\ndocumentation, wherein the payment of royalty was aggregated\nwith the manufacturing activity for determining the arm's length\nprice.\n3.2 The Ld. AD pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\nin law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not\nfollowing the principle of consistency and rejecting the aggregation\napproach (which

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Transfer Pricing\ndocumentation, wherein the payment of royalty was aggregated\nwith the manufacturing activity for determining the arm's length\nprice.\n\n3.2 The Ld. AD pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\nin law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not\nfollowing the principle of consistency and rejecting the aggregation\napproach

M/S VODAFONE GLOBAL SERVICES P LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the entire assessment deserves to be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise or amend or withdraw the Additional 3 M/s. Vodafone Global Services Private Limited Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered

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

section 92C(f) is considered as most appropriate method to benchmark this transaction As per Rule 10AB. the determination of ALP in relation to international transaction shall be the price which has been charged or would have been charged or paid for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non-associated enterprises, under similar circumstances, considering

SPECTRAFORCE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer. Accordingly, the primary adjustment pertains to the Human Resource and Staff Augmentation Services Segment (SAS). The adjustment in this segment is to be examined only if the adjustment in SAS segment is rejected, leading to reduction in Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of the applicant.” 21. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the above

VENKETESH ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.203/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Venketesh Associates, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. S. No.50 2 Office No.1, Platinum Classic Building, Pune Nagar Road, Chanddan Nagar, Pune- 410014. Pan : Aajfv9490J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.37,53,597/- By Invoking Provision Of Section 43Ca, On Account Of Difference

transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been 6 disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

24,00,000/- [Annexure-D(i)] and has earned gross profit of Rs.43,20,000/- and shown the same in return of income/P&L a/c/computation of income[Annexure-D(ii)]. Copy of notarized agreement to sale (MOU) between Yogeshwar Packaging Ltd. and Paresh Navnitlal Bhagat is attached herewith as Annexure-10. The copy of acknowledgement of return, computation of income

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

section 259 of the Companies Act of Singapore. The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore was pleased to grant the permission vide order dated 02.10.2015. Subsequently, the assessee company transferred the shares of 79,33,50,000 ordinary shares of BSPL held by the assessee company for total consideration of Singapore Dollar 1 to Bilcare Packaging Ltd., which

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

section 259 of the Companies Act of Singapore. The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore was pleased to grant the permission vide order dated 02.10.2015. Subsequently, the assessee company transferred the shares of 79,33,50,000 ordinary shares of BSPL held by the assessee company for total consideration of Singapore Dollar 1 to Bilcare Packaging Ltd., which

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

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

24. On the other hand, ld. AR vehemently opposed the submission of the ld. CIT-DR and submits that there is no evidence brought on record by the Department suggesting that the receipt of on-money consideration received by the assessee firm. The issue whether there is a transfer of property or not can be judged only with C.O. No.15/PUN/2023

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

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

24. On the other hand, ld. AR vehemently opposed the submission of the ld. CIT-DR and submits that there is no evidence brought on record by the Department suggesting that the receipt of on-money consideration received by the assessee firm. The issue whether there is a transfer of property or not can be judged only with C.O. No.15/PUN/2023

M/S GOYAL DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Goyal Developers, The Acit, 1, Business Embassy, V Circle-2, Pune. 1205/3/3, J.M.Road, S Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. Pan: Aajfg5666P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 08.12.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That There Was Marginal Difference Between The Sales Consideration Shown By The Appellant & The Value Adopted For Payment Of Stamp Duty & M/S.Goyal Developers [A]

24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer