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

Transfer Pricing Audit Report in Form 3CEB, Tax Audit Report in Form 3CACD and Form 29B. For the relevant AY, the assessee declared international transactions /specified domestic transactions (as reported in Form 3CEB) totaling to Rs.50,26,69,753/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Ld. Assessing 2 ITA No.839/PUN/2024, AY 2015-16 Officer (“AO”) referred the case

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

transfer pricing purposes in seven\n(7) earlier years in view of inter alia binding order of the\nTribunal?\n(iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase and in law the Tribunal erred in passing the\nimpugned order dated 28th September 2022 purporting\nto rely on decision of Delhi High Court in the case

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 purposes in seven\n(7) earlier years in view of inter alia binding order of the\nTribunal?\n\n(iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase and in law the Tribunal erred in passing the\nimpugned order dated 28th September 2022 purporting\nto rely on decision of Delhi High Court in the case

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

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

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

69,48,770/-. 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

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

69 (Kar) held that even where an assessee had shown positive income in the original return of income filed under the provisions of section 139(1) but in the assessment, business loss was determined by the Assessing Officer, even in such situation the Hon‟ble High Court held that the assessee had not violated any of the conditions of section

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

69 (Kar) held that even where an assessee had shown positive income in the original return of income filed under the provisions of section 139(1) but in the assessment, business loss was determined by the Assessing Officer, even in such situation the Hon‟ble High Court held that the assessee had not violated any of the conditions of section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 699/Pun/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tower S3, Level 1, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411013 Pan: Aadcm 9640 E . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Dt. 29/10/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] For The Ay 2017-18. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion on the computation of arm's length price as determined by TPO vis-à-vis arm's length price determined by the Appellant. 14. That the Appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

69,63,455/- The Ld AO referred the case of the appellant to the Ld Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms' Length Price (ALP) of International transactions entered into by the appellant with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). During the course of transfer pricing (TP) Audit, the erstwhile TPO, proposed an adjustment of Rs.17,64,79,234/- on account

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

69 as mandated by the amended provisions withdrawing its claim of deduction towards health and education cess for AY 2020-21. Therefore, in our view, there was no error on the part of the assessee in claiming education cess as an expense for the relevant AY under consideration. 6 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 Since the assessee claimed the deduction

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1723/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer pricing Officer (TPO) vide order dated 28.01.2021 passed u/s.92CA(3) made an adjustment of Rs.1,74,45,091/- to the international transaction relating to the export of traded spares to the AE. Thereafter, NFAC Delhi passed the Assessment Order u/s.143 r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act on 24.06.2021 making additions/disallowances assessed the income at Rs.2,29,81,09,549/-. Details

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

69\n(Calcutta Trib.)]\n13. Himalaya Distributors v. ITO - [2009] 125 TTJ 705 (Pune)]\n25. Some legal propositions have also been summarised in the\npaper book running into 29 pages referring evidenctiary value of\na statement retraction, presumption u/s.132(4A)/292C, legal\npropositions regarding deeming provisions of section 68 to 69C\nto be strictly construed, onus/burden for the undisclosed\nincome