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

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

37,318\nCUP\n12\nGuarantee Commission Paid\n78,89,367\nOTHER\nMETHOD\nTotal\n63,99,95,093/-\n4. While the TPO accepted the various international transactions entered into\nby the assessee with its AEs, however, he did not agree with the ALP of the\ninternational transactions relating to Cost sharing charges of Rs.67,158,603/-. He\nnoted that during

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

section 92C of the Act.\nWhile doing so, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. DRP have erred in not appreciating:\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal has categorically accepted the rendition of the\nservices\nThe fresh benchmarking submitted by the Appellant (vide the additional\nevidence submitted before the Ld. DRP) as per the directions of the\nHon'ble Tribunal which demonstrates the computation

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

37,770/- 12620% 4 Dadaraje Anandrao 5,21,96,958/- Rs.2,74,410/- 19022% Desai 5 Sambhaji Shamrao Patil 3,00,00,000/- Rs.2,08,110/- 14416% 6 Hanmant Bajirao Desai 5,16,30,000/- Rs.2,15,670/- 23947% 7 Pratap Ramdas Janugade 1,25,78,763/- Rs.4,59,040/- 2740% 17 21. Although the case was selected for scrutiny

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

ZS ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.211/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Zs Associates India Private V The Additional / Joint / Limited, S Deputy / Assistant Tower 3, World Trade Centre, Commissioner Of Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Income Tax, Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Pan:Aaacz2157Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade Date Of Hearing 11/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Assessment Order Dated 16.02.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017- 18, Emanating From Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 06.12.2021, Which In Turn Emanates From Draft Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) Of The Act

section 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on the following grounds which are independent of and without prejudice to each other General Ground Transfer pricing adjustment of INR 52,79,57,527/- 1.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO or Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

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

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(3)", "143(3)", "144C(3)", "144B", "40(a)(ia)", "14A", "40(a)(i)", "ICDS", "37", "40" ], "issues": "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning transfer pricing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 1OD of the Rules used for determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction of the Appellant; 3.4 violating the principle of “Rule of Consistency” while making the adjustment to the international transaction of provision of software development services and provision of marketing

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

B & R INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm’s Length Price as per section 92CA of the Act. The TPO noted that Assessee had applied Transactional Net Margin Method(TNMM) to determine Arm’s Length Price of its international transaction. The Assessee has selected Profit Level Indicator as Operating Profit upon Operating Revenue(OP/OR). The TPO passed an order u/s.92CA

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm's length\nprice of the international transactions who proposed Nil adjustment. However, the\nAssessing Officer took Rs.1,64,17,30,653/- as variation with respect to the TP\nadjustment. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the draft assessment order\ndetermining the total income at Rs.338,51,08,520/- by making certain other

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

37,168 by invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act, alleging that the Appellant earned more than 'ordinary profits' from its associated enterprise ('AE'). 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT failed to appreciate that once the arm's length price in respect

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