MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, dated 15.12.2010, the said issue was decided against assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee observing that Star Diagnostic was a tool which was utilized for servicing car on the basis of software installed in the same. The CIT(A) also noted that where Star Diagnostic was owned

MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIR.9,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, dated 15.12.2010, the said issue was decided against assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee observing that Star Diagnostic was a tool which was utilized for servicing car on the basis of software installed in the same. The CIT(A) also noted that where Star Diagnostic was owned

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

254 read with section 144B of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved by the adjustment sustained with respect to the allocation of\nRHQ charges, the assessee has presented the present appeal before the\nTribunal in this second round of proceedings by raising the following\ngrounds of appeal :\n"Ground No. 1\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1207/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Grupo Antolin India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Limited, B 25, Midc, Ranjangaon, Taluka: Shirur, Pune- 412220. Pan : Aaaca6730G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 13, Pune’S Order Dated 10.02.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/45/2013-14/606 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal :-

transfer pricing 8 adjustment representing the entire sum of Rs.3.66 crores which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement arguments against and in support of the impugned addition. Learned senior counsel explained the assessee’s arrangement with its group entities in light of the service agreement dated 02.10.2003 as well

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

2) or 74(1) except when the loss has not been C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 determined in pursuance of return of income filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving

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

2) or 74(1) except when the loss has not been C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 determined in pursuance of return of income filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving

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

254 ITR 22/123 Tasman 290 (Delhi) 6. CIT. R.1. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 219 (Bom.) 8. CIT v. Shahajada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD) , CIRCLE -3,, PUNE vs. M/S. BOBST INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacb7295F C.O. No.42/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.445/Pun/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacb7295F बनाम / V/S. Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Assessee By : Shri R. G. Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 17.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Filed The Cross Objection.

section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in absence of issuance of draft assessment order to the Assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble CIT(A) has: 2. erred in not appreciating the fact that the ld. TPO has modified the unadjusted operating margin of one of the comparable companies viz. International

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

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

2 years since the date of transfer as per JV agreement and as per the transfer of capital asset in stock in trade is dated 20.01.2011 and the assessee has purchased the agricultural land on 23.03.2017. The reasons given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act have already been reproduced

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit