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

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

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 ….

269-271 of the paper book). • As per the relevant extract of annual report of FCS Software (refer page 236 - 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

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

269 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merck Ltd. reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) held that the transfer pricing adjustment done by the AO/TPO without determining the ALP is bad under

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

269 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merck Ltd. reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) held that the transfer pricing adjustment done by the AO/TPO without determining the ALP is bad under

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

269 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merck Ltd. reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) held that the transfer pricing adjustment done by the AO/TPO without determining the ALP is bad under

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Transfer Pricing matters 5. Related Party Transactions 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/the Hon’ble DRP have erred in disallowing the interest of Rs. 68,40,000/-, calculated at the ad-hoc rate of 12% on the interest free securitydeposits given to related parties in relation to two flats

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

269 under section 37 of the Act on account of interest for late payment of PF and GST, without appreciating that the same are compensatory in nature 12. Without prejudice to the above, Ld. AD, in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP, grossly erred in not allowing additional deduction under section 10AA

OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustment to the value of international transactions amounting to INR 17,93,46,830 by rejecting the analysis conducted by the Appellant determining the arm's length price of the international transactions. Functionality 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned AO I TPO have erred in law and in fact by treating E-Infochips

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

269 (Raipur - Trib.) (ii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iii) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (Exemption) - [2023] 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.) III. Proposition 3: If an Application for Registration is not disposed off within 6 months, then same isdeemed to be accepted/approved, in terms of section 12AA

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

269/- after claiming deduction of Rs.40,43,305/- as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being the long term capital gain on sale of listed shares. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any license) in respect of copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work. Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act makes it clear that a computer programme is to be regarded as a 'literary work'. Thus, in order to treat the consideration paid by the cellular operator as royalty

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any license) in respect of copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work. Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act makes it clear that a computer programme is to be regarded as a 'literary work'. Thus, in order to treat the consideration paid by the cellular operator as royalty

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any license) in respect of copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work. Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act makes it clear that a computer programme is to be regarded as a 'literary work'. Thus, in order to treat the consideration paid by the cellular operator as royalty

ACIT, CIR.-6., PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

269 ITR 263 (Raj) 15. Before the CIT(A), the assessee claimed that in order to ensure smooth running of the business of the assessee was not hampered and business interests including those of employees, suppliers, creditors, etc. did not suffer, the assessee was bound to defend itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court later in its judgment in the assessee