DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) ,PUNE, SWARGATE vs. GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1118/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

Transfer Price [in short ‘TP’] adjustment for ₹5,68,19,782/- was made in relation to consideration against ‘receipt of advisory services’. The Ld. AO accordingly incorporated the TP adjustment and framed an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act and assessed the taxable income at ₹3,60,52,690/- as against retuned loss

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

6 (copy of the same has been handed over\nduring the course of the hearing),\n\n4. Thus, the assessee submits that there is no incorrect claim\nmade by it in the Income-tax return filed vis-à-vis section\n10AA of the Act and the action of the CPC denying deduction\nu/s.10AA by invoking section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,, PUNE

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra, Judical Member & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 0628/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-5, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant

Transfer Price [in short ‘TP’] adjustment for total sum of ₹4,29,42,878/- was made in relation to (1) provision of software development ₹45,25,254/- (2) provision of sales & marketing support services ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 DCIT Vs Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd. ITA No. 628/PUN/2021 AY: 2013-14 ₹1,42,00,046/- (3) management service fees

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

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

250/-. Subsequently, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings by issuance of notice u/s.274 r.w.s. u/s.270A of the Act on 16.07.2021 for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. However, as per the ld.AO assessee failed to comply to the notice of hearing and ld. AO concluding the proceedings levying penalty u/s.270A

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

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

Transfer Pricing Study Report and the scientific methodology adopted by the Appellant to determine hourly rates and their benchmarking with third parties using Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP") 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

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

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

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 Tax (Appeals) 13, Pune as per the above notification 2. Penalty is not warranted on the adjustment of Rs 4,07,42,345/-: 2.1 The learned

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

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

250, wherein while referring to section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass

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

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

250, wherein while referring to section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass

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

price and therefore the profits during the relevant accounting year. The situation emerges that the assessee has received whatever consideration was due in a substantive manner and the assessee cannot be allowed to take the plea that since those cheques were dishonoured within the meaning of the agreement, the agreement is invalidated. As per provisions of section

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

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

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

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

250 1412 07/12/2009 06/08/2012 5,80,000 10,07,000 464 4,27,000 1508 12/12/2009 26/12/2014 6,82,500 10,70,500 258 3,88,000 1417 02/03/2011 26/12/2014 12,85,000 13,28,000 320 43,000 1511 15/02/2010 25/01/2016 7,76,000 11,22,000 258 3,46,000 1507 09/01/2010 02/03/2016 6