QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer under sub- Section (3) of Section 92CA and even under Section 144C(8). The DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order and wherefore the word eligible assessee in Clause (1) and (15) and the proposed draft order referred to under Clause 144c(1) and (8) will have to be given full

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

36,145/-. Since there Prodair Air Products India Pvt. Ltd., [A] was International transactions with the Associated Enterprise (AE) the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who passed an order under section92CA(3) on 24/07/2021 proposing an adjustment of Rs.3,41,50,685/- to the International transaction of Payment of Interest to AE on the Loan taken from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. UNDERCARRIAGE AND TRACTOR PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing order has been passed on 30.10.2018 and the TPO had adequate time to complete the penalty proceedings. 4 ITA No.839/PUN/2024, AY 2015-16 2.5 The present case is not the case where the documents were not filed at all. Section 271G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prescribes penalty in case a person fails to furnish information

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

transferred for investment in fixed assets. Hence it is hereby concluded that the funds received by the assessee-company from the Pranav International Ltd., Dubai to the tune of Rs.1,62,84,153/- in FY 2016-17 are unexplained credit in the books of the assessee. Accordingly, the unexplained credit of Rs.1,62,84,153/- is added to the total

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

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following\nreasons:\n“1.\nDeemed International Transactions\n2.\nLarge value of international transactions\n3.\nTransactions with Company whose Registration has been Cancelled by\nMCA\n4.\nDuty Drawback\n5.\nLower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR (Part A-OI) in comparison

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

price based on three external comparables which are not in the same line of business and are not having the same commercial model. 3. 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

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36,95,925/- and after\nduly taking approval from Addl.CIT u/s.153D of the Act\nassessed the income at Rs.3,65,56,555/- Subsequently, ld.\nPCIT having jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act called for the\nassessment records of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 and after\nperusal of the assessment records noticed that there are huge\nunsecured loans standing

BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 699/Pun/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tower S3, Level 1, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411013 Pan: Aadcm 9640 E . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Dt. 29/10/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] For The Ay 2017-18. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion on the computation of arm's length price as determined by TPO vis-à-vis arm's length price determined by the Appellant. 14. That the Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment 5 The Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld AO/TPO's action of making an adjustment of Rs. 2,10,10,000 to the income of the appellant by holding that its international transactions do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Income

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

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

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

price. 6.3 Thus, it means on the same date i.e.17.07.2013, the assessee purchased 5000 units and within less than One(1) minute sold it by earning profit of Rs.13/- per unit. Assessee claimed that Assessee had taken Delivery, however, we fail to understand, how one can take delivery of 5000 units within few seconds and then immediately Sale

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

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

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 immediately, even though the consideration

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

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

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 immediately, even though the consideration

DANA ANAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, AKURDI,PUNE

36 of the Act, for computing income under the head,\n“Income from Business and Profession”.\n16. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at\nthe stage of computing “Total taxable income". Even if any payments\nunder section 80G forms part of CSR payments ( keeping in mind ineligible\ndeduction expressly providedu/s.80G), the same would already stand\nexcluded while

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on his decision in preceding AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case involving the identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

price of such\ninvestment then loss of such investment is a capital loss.\n20. At the cost of repetition, brief facts relating to this issue\nare that in order to expand its business overseas and also to\nincrease its export sales and other Revenue in the field of\nmanufacturing of high precision caging components and\nAerospace and Defence Industries

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

price of such\ninvestment then loss of such investment is a capital loss.\n\n20. At the cost of repetition, brief facts relating to this issue\nare that in order to expand its business overseas and also to\nincrease its export sales and other Revenue in the field of\nmanufacturing of high precision caging components and\nAerospace and Defence Industries