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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO accepted the transaction of Payment of R&D expenses at ALP. In the computation of total income, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,73,42,263/- on Research and development expenses. The assessee

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO accepted the transaction of Payment of R&D expenses at ALP. In the computation of total income, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,73,42,263/- on Research and development expenses. The assessee

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transactions. The TPO accepted the transaction of Payment of R&D expenses at ALP. In the computation of total income, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,73,42,263/- on Research and development expenses. The assessee

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer (TPO) for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international\ntransactions. The TPO accepted the transaction of Payment of R&D expenses at\nALP. In the computation of total income, the assessee had claimed weighted\ndeduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,73,42,263/- on Research and\ndevelopment expenses. The assessee

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

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

35. (1) In respect of expenditure on scientific research, the following deductions shall be allowed— (i) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended on scientific research related to the business. Explanation.—Where any such expenditure has been laid out or expended before the commencement of the business (not being expenditure laid

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

35,736\nTNMM\n2\nCommission earned\n1,73,33,580\nTNMM\n3\nReimbursement\nof\nexpenses\n27,11,487\nCUP\nreceived\n4\nCost sharing charges\n67,158,603\nTNMM\n5\nPurchase of traded goods\n32,51,47,883\nRPM\n6\nPurchase of Raw material\n5,68,30,646\nTNMM\n7\nPurchase of Fixed Assets\n13,92,23,545\nTNMM\n8\nPayment

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

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

transfer pricing\nanalysis. A separate benchmarking of the services is\nalso supported by the recent Punjab & Haryana High\nCourt's decision rendered in the case of Knorr-Bremse\nIndia (P) Ltd. vs ACIT[2016] 380ITR 307(P&H) and Delhi\nHigh Court's decision in the case of Denso India Ltd. vs\nACIT(ITA No. 443/2013 and ITA No. 451/2013

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\nanalysis. A separate benchmarking of the services is\nalso supported by the recent Punjab & Haryana High\nCourt's decision rendered in the case of Knorr-Bremse\nIndia (P) Ltd. vs ACIT[2016] 380ITR 307(P&H) and Delhi\nHigh Court's decision in the case of Denso India Ltd. vs\nACIT(ITA No. 443/2013 and ITA No. 451/2013

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

35,15,54,470 as against income of Rs. 18,83,22,690 (as per the return of income filed by the Appellant on 30 November 2018) making a Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 16,32,31,780. B. Transfer Pricing adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the Act in respect of international transaction of provision of information technology

KATERRA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalikaterra Technology Services Vs Acit, Circle-2, Llp, Unit No.301 & 302, Pune. 3Rd Floor, Nextgen Avenue Building, Off Senapati Bapat Road, Shivajinagar, Bhamburda, Tq. Haveli, Pune. Pan: Aarfk 3667 L Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anurag Shrivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Findings Of Ld.Drp-3, Mumbai-2, Dated 19.05.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “The Ld. Assessing Officer ["Ao"], Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ["Tpo"] & Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Cdrp") Erred In Law & In Fact In Assessing The Total Income Of Inr 1,71,54,680 As Against Returned Income Of Inr 88,61,750 As Computed By The Appellant In Its Return Of Income. Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of The International Transaction Relating To Information Technology Enabled Services ("Ites”) - Inr 82,92,925 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Ld.Ao Is Erroneous & Bad In Law; 2. The Ld. Ao/Tpo/ Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Upholding Katerra Technology Services Llp

Transfer Pricing documentation („TP documentation'); 4. The Ld. AO/TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in disregarding certain quantitative filters applied by the Appellant in the TP documentation and applying certain additional quantitative filters. 5. The Ld. AO/TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in law by conducting a fresh search process and adding new set of comparable companies

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

section 92C(3) and Rule 10B(3) are satisfied in the present case. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/DRP has erred in enhancing the income of Appellant by Rs. 2,90,89,437 while holding that the Appellant's international transaction pertaining to provision of Staff 8 Augmentation Service

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Price ('ALP') of the payment for services as 'NIL' by\ndisregarding the detailed benchmarking approach and the\nmethodology adopted by the Appellant in its TP documentation\nmaintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules').\n8. Upholding/confirming the action of Ld. TPO, in going beyond\nthe scope under section 92CA

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO observed that the assessee had\nentered into various international transactions with its AEs. He observed that the\nassessee company has adopted TNMM Method for benchmarking the international\ntransaction of export of traded spares to the AEs. Further, the assessee company\nhas selected 6 companies as comparable for trading activity. From the submissions\nfiled

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

35,00,000/- (Annexure-B) and had earned gross profit of Rs.90,00,000/-. Copy of notarized agreement between Vasanti Shankar & Rathi Estates is attached herewith as Annexure-7. (4) Rathi Estates had entered into notarized agreement (MOU) to sale with Yogeshwar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of Rs.2,80,80,000/-[Annexure-C(i)] and earned gross income

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

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