M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue by : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 08-01-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03-03-2020 2 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue by : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 08-01-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03-03-2020 2 ITA Nos. 583 & 619/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2003-04 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANVEL vs. PRAMOD ARJUN THAKUR,, RAIGAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.860/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

transferred by him to his son, the respondent. As per the second proviso to section 56(2)(vii), the above deeming provisions are not attracted where the immovable property in received from any relative. The term relative has been defined in Explanation (e) to section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is thus the case that

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue by : S/Shri Kalika Singh & Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25-05-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03-06-2021 2 ITA Nos.584 & 620/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2005-06 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 PAN : AAACT3904F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Revenue by : S/Shri Kalika Singh & Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25-05-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03-06-2021 2 ITA Nos.584 & 620/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2005-06 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

56,10,076 to the value of international transactions of MB India and not considering the analysis provided in the transfer pricing study report for benchmarking of the Appellant's international transactions. The Appellant prays that the approach followed in the transfer pricing study report be accepted and accordingly, the arm's length price of the international transactions be accepted

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

56,10,076 to the value of international transactions of MB India and not considering the analysis provided in the transfer pricing study report for benchmarking of the Appellant's international transactions. The Appellant prays that the approach followed in the transfer pricing study report be accepted and accordingly, the arm's length price of the international transactions be accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013. PAN : AAACT3904F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kamal Shaney Revenue by : Smt. Nandita Kanchan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05.03.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2019 A.Y.2011-12 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

56 & 57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411 013. PAN : AAACT3904F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kamal Shaney Revenue by : Smt. Nandita Kanchan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05.03.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2019 A.Y.2011-12 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

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

SAR SENAPATI UMABAI DABHADE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56 of the Act. 8. As regards the claim of the assessee regarding admissibility of deduction w/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, it may be mentioned that a plain reading of the Sec. 8OP(2)(d) of the Act shows that interest income earned by a cooperative society will be eligible for deduction only from its investments with another

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

section 56(2)(vib) 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

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

price receivable by appellant under the 3 IT(SS)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 ITA No. 609/Pun/09 Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala development agreement. It was neither a gratuitous advance nor with the obligation to return the same. It did not bear any interest. 4.5 In similar situation of advance against sale of land, ITAT, Delhi „C‟ Bench, in the case

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1016/Pun/2024

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. 6.6 In this regard, it is noticed that, the impugned consideration fixed

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.14/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mercedes-Benz India Privatge The Acit, Circle-9, Pune. Limited, Vs E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, . Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal.Khed, Pune – 410 501. Pan: Aabcm 1786 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Darpan Kirpalani – Ar Revenue By Shri Prashant Gadekar – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises Against The Acit, Circle-9, Pune’S Assessment Dated 07.11.2017 Framed In Furtherance To Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai “Drp”S Directions Dated 14.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.27, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W. S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 92C(3)/92CA(1) and hence, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The transfer pricing adjustment and the Transfer Pricing Order passed should be quashed as being bad in law or illegal or void ab initio. Ground No. 2 - General ground related to Transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.4,81,00,000 Erred