ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 56(2)(vii)(b). The impugned price was fixed in F.Y. 2015-16 as per the registered sale deed and hence, the value of the property for stamp duty purpose is to be considered on the date of registering the agreement.\n6.6 In this regard, it is noticed that, the impugned consideration fixed

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

CUMMINS GENERATOR TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1641/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cummins Generator V The Assessment Unit, Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., S Income Tax Department, Tower A, 6Th Floor, Cummins Nfac & The Acit, India Offie Campus, Balewadi, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcc1533E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shir Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 07.06.2024; To Give Effect To The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 18.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. Ground For Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Drp")

Transfer Pricing Officer preferred an appeal before Dispute Resolution Panel. Dispute Resolution Panel decided the objections raised by assessee vide order dated 18.05.2024. Then the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 07.06.2024. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,29,56

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

section 56(2)(vib) of the Act, to the\nparliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in\nrespect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in\nexcess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is\nhighly doubtful, in view of the facts below:\n(i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

price paid by the assessee as per the Registered Agreement. The difference of Rs.7,75,500/- is 4 % only of the Value Decided by DVO. 5. Section 56(2)(x) was amended by Finance Act, 2018, the amended section is reproduced here as under : “56(2)(x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Pricing Officer (TPO). On due consideration of\nsubmissions filed by the assessee, Ld.TPO vide order dated\n29/07/2021 passed an order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act\nproposing TP adjustment of Rs.12,70,86,646/-. Ld.AO along\nwith TP adjustments also, proposed various other additions\namounting to Rs.68,14,79,984/- and passed a draft\nassessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) r.w.s.144B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Pricing Officer (TPO). On due consideration of\nsubmissions filed by the assessee, Ld.TPO vide order dated\n29/07/2021 passed an order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act\n\nproposing TP adjustment of Rs.12,70,86,646/-. Ld.AO along\nwith TP adjustments also, proposed various other additions\namounting to Rs.68,14,79,984/- and passed a draft\nassessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer of 34000 Equity shares at value of Rs.11,764.70 per share. The assessee submitted valuation report in respect of Equity shares to Diana having the fair market of shares at Rs.11,680.00 per share under Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The AO held that the shares acquired by the assessee from ABIL were undervalued at Rs.11,764.70 per share

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer of 34000 Equity shares at value of Rs.11,764.70 per share. The assessee submitted valuation report in respect of Equity shares to Diana having the fair market of shares at Rs.11,680.00 per share under Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The AO held that the shares acquired by the assessee from ABIL were undervalued at Rs.11,764.70 per share

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act. Ld. DR further made reference to the following\nwritten submissions :\n“1. Brief facts of the case:\n1.1 The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of real estate. A\nsearch action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted\non 10.01.2019. Consequently, the assessment was completed u/s\n143(3) r.w.s 153A

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

section 92(2) of the Act? 3(b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in placing reliance on the transfer pricing orders for the subsequent assessment years 2016-17 and 2017- 18 for allowing the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 without appreciating that the principle

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