M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Section 144C(6)(C) of the Act. The grounds of appeal mentioned below are without prejudice to the above ground. Transfer Pricing

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GALLAGHER OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NFAC,, DELHI

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

6 Access Healthcare 436.58 23.88% Services Pvt. Ltd. 7 M P S Ltd. 18.01 58.48% Place 35th Percentile 3 18.04% 4 23.19% Median 65th Percentile 5 23.29% Assessee’s PLI 13.30% 2.2 Thus, the Transfer Pricing Officer held that the transaction of providing business support services was not at Arms’ Length Price as the profit level indicator OP/OC

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)

6. Provisions of Chapter XIIB are independent and TP adjustments, if any, ought not be made to the deemed total income computation under section 115JB 6.1 The NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in law and on facts by carrying out the transfer pricing

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

section 92C of the Act.\nWhile doing so, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. DRP have erred in not appreciating:\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal has categorically accepted the rendition of the\nservices\nThe fresh benchmarking submitted by the Appellant (vide the additional\nevidence submitted before the Ld. DRP) as per the directions of the\nHon'ble Tribunal which demonstrates the computation

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

section 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["hereinafter referred to as "the Act'] on the following grounds which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. Grounds on Transfer Pricing issue 1. General Ground: Transfer pricing adjustment of INR 6

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

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Capgemini Technology V The Assistant Services India Limited[As S Commissioner Of Income Successor In Interest Of Tax-1(1)(1), Pune. Erstwhile Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited-Since Amalgamated], Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District- Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacck8280B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The

section 292(b). 6. Now in the instant facts, we observe that the assessee had filed a formal intimation before the DCIT, Transfer Pricing

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

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

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Pricing Officer passed an order dated 24.07.2021. After that as per section 144C of the Act, the AO(National Faceless Assessment Centre passed draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act. The assessee’s filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) as per section 144C(2) of the Act. The relevant provision of section 144C are reproduced here

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 Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The TPO by an order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.13,91,99,000/- in respect of manufacturing segment and also suggested adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fees of Rs.8,84,79,495/-. While doing

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 Officer (TPO) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The TPO by an order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) suggested the upward TP adjustments of Rs.13,91,99,000/- in respect of manufacturing segment and also suggested adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fees of Rs.8,84,79,495/-. While doing

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

SHRI GANESH SERVA SEVA SANGHA SHRIPUR,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

6 Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur 7. Further, reliance placed on the following decisions : 7 Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld CIT(E). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the revisionary powers

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

6 (copy of the same has been handed over\nduring the course of the hearing),\n\n4. Thus, the assessee submits that there is no incorrect claim\nmade by it in the Income-tax return filed vis-à-vis section\n10AA of the Act and the action of the CPC denying deduction\nu/s.10AA by invoking section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

6. In fact, Co-ordinate Bench under similar circumstances had examined the effect of omission of sub-section (9) to Section 10B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2004 by Finance Act, 2003 and held that there was no saving clause or provision introduced by way of amendment by omitting sub-section (9) of section 10B. In the matter of General Finance

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

6. In fact, Co-ordinate Bench under similar circumstances had examined the effect of omission of sub-section (9) to Section 10B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2004 by Finance Act, 2003 and held that there was no saving clause or provision introduced by way of amendment by omitting sub-section (9) of section 10B. In the matter of General Finance