LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

section 92C of the Act read with the applicable Rule thereunder,\ncannot be sustained.\"\n14.\nIn the case of Rehau Polymers Private Limited v. ACIT (supra), the\nPune Tribunal held as under :\n“25. However, in the instant case, although the TPO has made a reference of\nCUP method in para 32, page 23 of his order which was selected

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

58,06,824/-\n756,25,79,114/-\n6.\n13.1 Computation of Book Profit as per the provisions of section 115JB of the\nIncome Tax Act,:-.\nSr. No.\nParticulars\nAmount (in Rs.)\nजो दण्ड\nli.\nBook Profit as per Computation\n819,56,26,034/-\nTAX DEPARTMENT L\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.\n47,55,629/-\nliii\nAssessed Book Profit\n820

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

58,06,824/-\n756,25,79,114/-\n\n6.\n13.1 Computation of Book Profit as per the provisions of section 115JB of the\nIncome Tax Act,-\nSr. No.\nParticulars\nAmount (in Rs.)\nजो दण्ड\nli.\nBook Profit as per Computation\nTAX DEPARTMENT L\n819,56,26,034/-\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.\n47,55,629/-\nliii\nAssessed Book Profit\n820

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. UNDERCARRIAGE AND TRACTOR PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 92D. Perusal of Transfer pricing study report shows that the appellant has adopted CUP as most appropriate method for all the transactions with the AEs. Following are the details given by the appellant in its TP study report on page 26 and 39. 3 ITA No.839/PUN/2024, AY 2015-16 Sr. No. Type of Amount Rs. Criteria Transaction 1 Purchase

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 92C(f) is considered as most appropriate method to benchmark this transaction As per Rule 10AB. the determination of ALP in relation to international transaction shall be the price which has been charged or would have been charged or paid for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non-associated enterprises, under similar circumstances, considering

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 1OD of the Rules used for determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction of the Appellant; 3.4 violating the principle of “Rule of Consistency” while making the adjustment to the international transaction of provision of software development services and provision of marketing

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 proceedings, the TPO observed that the assessee had\nentered into various international transactions with its AEs. He observed that the\nassessee company has adopted TNMM Method for benchmarking the international\ntransaction of export of traded spares to the AEs. Further, the assessee company\nhas selected 6 companies as comparable for trading activity. From the submissions\nfiled

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

OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 6,58,00,557. 2 Optiva India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Modification of existing quantitative filters / Application of new quantitative filters 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in modifying the quantitative filters applied by the Appellant as well as introducing additional quantitative filters to modify

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring the instant case from National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC) to learned AO. The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to provide

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

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

58,69,978/- on account of undisclosed profit on sale of immovable property placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliaperumal (supra). The admitted facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of real estate development. It had sold the work-in-progress of project titled

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

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

58,69,978/- on account of undisclosed profit on sale of immovable property placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliaperumal (supra). The admitted facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of real estate development. It had sold the work-in-progress of project titled

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

58,45,666 6 ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A] 3.2. Issue No. 2: Allowability of deduction U/s 80G vis-à-vis CSR expenses of Rs.4,55,13,521. 4. The Ld.AO assessed the tax liability charging interest and initiated penalty proceedings U/s 270A. 5. The appellant had contested the additions on issue no. 2 i.e. deduction

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

58,184/-. The penalty under sub-section (7) of section 270A of the Act was levied for disallowance of employees contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported under sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported