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

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 : “7.5 With

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “the TPO”) under section 92CA(2) of the Act, the assessee‟s assertion was rejected. The TPO rejected the application of external TNMM adopted by the assessee and instead applied internal TNMM mechanism in order to benchmark the international transaction relating to export of spares and components to AE. The TPO analyzed the profitability

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED, BARAMATI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “the TPO”) under section 92CA(2) of the Act, the assessee‟s assertion was rejected. The TPO rejected the application of external TNMM adopted by the assessee and instead applied internal TNMM mechanism in order to benchmark the international transaction relating to export of spares and components to AE. The TPO analyzed the profitability

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2744/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Precision Camshafts Limited, V Assessment Unit, E-102/103, Akkalkot Road S Income Tax Department Midc, Solapur – 413006. (National Faceless Maharashtra. Assessment Center), Jurisdiction : Pne C(1), Range 63, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax („Dcit‟), Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 Dated 24.10.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Dispute Resolution Panel‟S Order Passed Under Section 144C(5) Of

Section 92 (3) of the Act. The appellant company craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 1.1 Additional Ground filed : “1] The learned A.O. / DRP erred in making an addition on protective basis of Rs.13,81,700/- by adopting the Arm's Length interest rate @ 2.40% as against 1.90% adopted

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 Officer (TPO) for\ndetermining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The\nTPO vide order dated 28.07.2021 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act proposed an\nupward adjustment of Rs.1,78,97,091/- to the international transactions relating to\nthe export of traded spares to the Associated Enterprises (AEs). Subsequently the\nAssessing Officer completed

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LTD.,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

Transfer Pricing Order the TPO has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd., in ITA no 1165 of 2013. We have studied the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and it is distinguishable on facts. The relevant paragraphs of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

DCIT, SWARGATE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

45,852/- levied under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. 1961. despite the failure of the assessee to furnish complete and relevant information as required under section 92D read with Rule 10D. 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that the penalty under section 271G is not sustainable

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that Quantum Addition has been deleted by ITAT for A.Y.2014-15 in Assessee's own case in

45,852/- levied under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. 1961. despite the failure of the assessee to furnish complete and relevant information as required under section 92D read with Rule 10D. 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that the penalty under section 271G is not sustainable

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

price, the assessee had given up or 13 Rajendra Rasiklal Shah relinquished his right of specific performance and as consideration of relinquishing that right, the assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The right, title and interest acquired under the agreement of sale clearly fall within the definition of capital asset (Section 2(14)). Instead of assigning

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

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

price and therefore the profits during the relevant accounting year. The situation emerges that the assessee has received whatever consideration was due in a substantive manner and the assessee cannot be allowed to take the plea that since those cheques were dishonoured within the meaning of the agreement, the agreement is invalidated. As per provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

price for acquiring such rights. In case the assessee transfers such right to manufacture etc. and also simultaneously accepts the negative covenant of non- compete, total consideration received is considered for computing capital gain u/s 45 without taking any recourse to the provisions of section

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

price for acquiring such rights. In case the assessee transfers such right to manufacture etc. and also simultaneously accepts the negative covenant of non- compete, total consideration received is considered for computing capital gain u/s 45 without taking any recourse to the provisions of section

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

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

price at Rs.47,97,557/- has made substantial payment of Rs.34,56,438/- before 31.03.2013 and merely the registration was not done, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. 9 12. I find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The contents of the allotment letter dated

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 45(2) is inconsequential. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 23.12.2014 and the following chart disclosing the calculation of correct capital gain on sale of flats: 11 Particulars FY 16-17 AY 17-18 (a) Sale Consideration 3,67,25,561 (b) Total FMV as on date