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

42,45,09,675 31 March 2020 4.1 The TPO proposed an adjustment only with reference to Management Service Fees. TPO decided Arm’s Length Price of Management Service Fees at Rs.NIL using other method. The DRP has confirmed TPO’s order. ITA No.1680/PUN/2024 [A] 4.2 The basic allegations of the TPO mentioned in the order are as under

SEQUENCE DESIGN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2106/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

Transfer Pricing adjustment of earlier years. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law by not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for not reporting the transaction of Rs 4,07,42,345/- in Form 3CEB considering the provisions of section

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

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

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

42, 54 and 55 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the above contentions of the assessee firm and proceeded to hold that there is a transfer of property giving rise to the taxable profits in terms of provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r.w.s. 2(47) of the Income

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

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

42, 54 and 55 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the above contentions of the assessee firm and proceeded to hold that there is a transfer of property giving rise to the taxable profits in terms of provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r.w.s. 2(47) of the 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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The TPO by an order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.13,91,99,000/- in respect of manufacturing segment and also suggested adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fees of Rs.8,84,79,495/-. While doing

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The TPO by an order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.13,91,99,000/- in respect of manufacturing segment and also suggested adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fees of Rs.8,84,79,495/-. While doing

UBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD),PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE - 1, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

42 of Transfer Pricing Report which is appearing on page no 373 in factual paper book. It is submitted that this is purely a figure of reimbursement of expenses. However, it was the submission of the assessee that when it provides services to associated enterprises the assessee recovers 14.5% markup on cost eligible for markup. Such as cost

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

Price of the same is shown at Rs.1,24,07,367/- as pointed out by the Auditor in his Audit Report dated 13.10.2016. Please explain why the difference of Rs.38,69,867/- should not be included in your income as provided in section 43CA of the Income Tax Act.” 4. The assessee in response to the same filed the following

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

42,200/-. The only hospital building, falling in that block, was transferred during the year for a total consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-. The assessee started construction of a new hospital- cum-residential building and showed the addition to the block of building by a sum of Rs.78,39,068/-. The point for determination is as to whether the action

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

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra, Judical Member & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 0628/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-5, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant

Transfer Price [in short ‘TP’] adjustment for total sum of ₹4,29,42,878/- was made in relation to (1) provision of software development ₹45,25,254/- (2) provision of sales & marketing support services ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 DCIT Vs Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd. ITA No. 628/PUN/2021 AY: 2013-14 ₹1,42,00,046/- (3) management service fees

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

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

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

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 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