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

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act even though retracted, the addition could be justified. The judgements are distinguishable on facts.” 25. In the light of above findings, we are of the considered opinion that the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) suffers from illegality and cannot be sustained in the eyes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

transfer of a developed facility, but refers constantly to income from operation and maintenance of such facility. v) Section 80-IA(2) talks of deduction specified in sub section (1), which can be claimed for any ten consecutive assessment years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

transfer of a developed facility, but refers constantly to income from operation and maintenance of such facility. v) Section 80-IA(2) talks of deduction specified in sub section (1), which can be claimed for any ten consecutive assessment years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

transfer of a developed facility, but refers constantly to income from operation and maintenance of such facility. v) Section 80-IA(2) talks of deduction specified in sub section (1), which can be claimed for any ten consecutive assessment years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility

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

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 the AE. The Assessee had obtained following loans and paid interest to AE. ECB Loan number 1 ECB Loan number 2 Date of Loan

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

41,74,414/- to the international transaction relating to provision of business auxiliary and software development services by the Appellant 2.1 The learned AD/learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in not accepting certain comparable companies selected by the Assessee on the basis of additional quantitative/qualitative filters adopted by the learned TPO and confirmed by the Hon'ble DRP 211 Akshay

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

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

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such

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

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

41,269 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

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

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

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

transfer of the asset.” 14. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee in the paper book reveals that the assessee has received advances by cheque in respect of those three flats as per agreement and the sale deeds were executed subsequently where the market price is more than the agreement value. Since the assessee has received a part

BRAHMAN SABHA KARVEER,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

41-AA of The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. c) Details of actual free services/ concessional services provided to patients from financially weaker sections of the society with evidence and State Government norms followed, with evidence in respect of Charitable Hospitals. d) Copy of separate bank account maintained for this purpose. e) Detailed list of Doctors, Nurses and staff along

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:

prices of M/s. Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd has been jagged up through cartel of interlinked companies controlled and managed by entry operators for the purpose of providing accommodation entry of 5 bogus long term capital gain. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption