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 adjustments ought not be made to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 7. Non grant of deduction under section 80-IAB on income from other sources and capital gains earned during the subject year The Hon’ble. DRP / NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in not granting a deduction under section

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Transfer Pricing\ndocumentation, wherein the payment of royalty was aggregated\nwith the manufacturing activity for determining the arm's length\nprice.\n3.2 The Ld. AD pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\nin law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not\nfollowing the principle of consistency and rejecting the aggregation\napproach (which

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Transfer Pricing\ndocumentation, wherein the payment of royalty was aggregated\nwith the manufacturing activity for determining the arm's length\nprice.\n\n3.2 The Ld. AD pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\nin law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not\nfollowing the principle of consistency and rejecting the aggregation\napproach

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

price by passing necessary journal entries. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee. He noted that the assessee firm and the sister concern has purchased the lands for business purpose. However, as no business was carried on in these lands, the same was transferred to the partners which amounts to a transfer resulting

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

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

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

48,210/- after making adjustments as per 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

ROOPAM STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JALNA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALNA, CIRCLE-JALNA, JALNA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

48,058/- to the total income of the Appellant on account of transfer pricing adjustment to the specified domestic transactions entered into by the Appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the transfer pricing adjustment in specified domestic transaction, without appreciating that, section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

48 (Madhya Pradesh)\nShri Ramamoorthy Vasudevan Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Central) (ITA Nos.967 & 968/PUN/2016) (Pune-\nTrib)\nM/s. B.U. Bhandari Schemes Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax-Central (ITA 637 to 643/PUN/2018)\n1\n2\n3\n4\nSmt. Abha Bansal Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax,\n(Central), Gurgaon [2021] 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi-Trib)\n5\nGyan Infrabuild

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 adjustment on corporate guarantee fee came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee‘s own case for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The lead order was passed for the A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.1693/PUN/2018 holding that guarantee fee should be charged at 0.5%, which should be further increased by any expenditure actually incurred

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 adjustment on corporate guarantee fee came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee‘s own case for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The lead order was passed for the A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.1693/PUN/2018 holding that guarantee fee should be charged at 0.5%, which should be further increased by any expenditure actually incurred

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

48,770/-. After the return being processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, case selected for scrutiny under CASS and reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TP) for determination of Arm’s Length Prices (ALP) in respect of international transaction entered into with the Associated Enterprises (AEs). Assessee company is a back end software centre developing some functions

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

Transfer Pricing study report, he invoked section 10AA(9) read with section 801A(10) and re-computed the ordinary profits of the assessee company based on the arithmetic mean of the profits of comparable entities in the TP study. 5.3.1 However I feel that AO has to establish the arrangement before proceeding to disregard the profits declared by the assessee

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

Transfer Pricing study report, he invoked section 10AA(9) read with section 801A(10) and re-computed the ordinary profits of the assessee company based on the arithmetic mean of the profits of comparable entities in the TP study. 5.3.1 However I feel that AO has to establish the arrangement before proceeding to disregard the profits declared by the assessee

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 48

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RAFIQ NAIK EXPORTS P LTD., , RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy./Acit, Circle-1, Vs. Rafiq Naik Exports Private Limited, Kolhapur Plot No.44 To 48, Mirkar Wada Fish, Industry Locality, Ratnagiri – 415 612 Maharashtra Pan : Aagcr9577G Appellant Respondent

48, Mirkar Wada Fish, Kolhapur Industry Locality, Ratnagiri – 415 612 Maharashtra PAN : AAGCR9577G Cross Objector Appellant in the appeal Assessee by: Shri R.D. Onkar Revenue by: Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing 26-09-2023 Date of pronouncement 27-09-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee arise

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