SEQUENCE DESIGN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2106/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

1. Order passed without jurisdiction is null and void: 2 Sequence Design (India) Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Act under the jurisdiction of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi by ignoring CBDT Notification. He erred in not appreciating that the jurisdiction of the present appeal was with Commissioner of Income

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 13, Pune (CITA) your\n\n8\nITA No.127/PUN/2024\nITA No.333/PUN/2024\nITA No.96/PUN/2024\nCO No.12/PUN/2024\nITA No.228/PUN/2024\n\nappellant submits following grounds for your kind and sympathetic consideration which are raised without prejudice to each other:\n\nOn facts and in circumstances

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 06.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) r.w.s. 143(3B) of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.2719/PUN./2024 (Epygen Biotech Pvt. Ltd.) 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- (1) On the facts and circumstances

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 13, Pune (CITA) your CO No.12/PUN/2024 appellant submits following grounds for your kind and sympathetic consideration which are raised without prejudice to each other: On facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, 1. The Learned CITA erred in not allowing

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 13, Pune (CITA) your CO No.12/PUN/2024 appellant submits following grounds for your kind and sympathetic consideration which are raised without prejudice to each other: On facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, 1. The Learned CITA erred in not allowing

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 13, Pune (CITA) your CO No.12/PUN/2024 appellant submits following grounds for your kind and sympathetic consideration which are raised without prejudice to each other: On facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, 1. The Learned CITA erred in not allowing

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

250% in total turnover of the company, the accounts department was overloaded and due to this reason, there can be some unintentional discrepancies in the books of accounts, for which, the Managing Director of the company had offered to estimate the profit @ 9% of the turnover. It was further submitted that the assessee company has accepted the income determined

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

250% in total turnover of the company, the accounts department was overloaded and due to this reason, there can be some unintentional discrepancies in the books of accounts, for which, the Managing Director of the company had offered to estimate the profit @ 9% of the turnover. It was further submitted that the assessee company has accepted the income determined

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]

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 and the value adopted for payment of Stamp duty & M/s.Goyal Developers [A] therefore no addition was justified1

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that Quantum Addition has been deleted by ITAT for A.Y.2014-15 in Assessee's own case in

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15both dated 19.12.2024. We treat appeal in ITA No.407/PUN/2025 as the lead case. The Revenue in ITA No.407/PUN/2025 has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA Nos.383 & 407/PUN/2025 [R] “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty

DCIT, SWARGATE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15both dated 19.12.2024. We treat appeal in ITA No.407/PUN/2025 as the lead case. The Revenue in ITA No.407/PUN/2025 has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA Nos.383 & 407/PUN/2025 [R] “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. In the instant appeal, Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CTT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

250 of the Act i.e. levying penalty of INR 3,55,82,949/-. Legal grounds: 2 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not imposing penalty based on the additions as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in quantum appeal of the Appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances

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

1) were duly served upon the assessee along with detailed questionnaire and the assessee made compliance to such notices. Since the assessee had entered into certain international transactions, the Assessing Officer (AO) referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who proposed upward adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/-. The AO thereafter completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C

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

250/-. Assessee is a listed company having its headquarter situated at Solapur, Maharashtra, India. 3. Assessee Company is engaged in manufacturing of camshafts for Railways and Auto Industry. Assessee‟s case was selected for scrutiny. Since there were international transactions, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) u/s.92CA of the Act, with the approval of Competent Authority.PCL International

NAV MAHARASHTRA CHAKAN OIL MILLS LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Transfer Pricing Adjustments are only with reference to Specified Domestic Transactions. This issue has not been discussed by the ld.CIT(A). 4.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once

NAV MAHARASHTRA CHAKAN OIL MILLS LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(4) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Transfer Pricing Adjustments are only with reference to Specified Domestic Transactions. This issue has not been discussed by the ld.CIT(A). 4.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once