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

77,070/- 3552% 3 Vijay Raghunath Patil 3,00,00,000/- Rs.2,37,770/- 12620% 4 Dadaraje Anandrao 5,21,96,958/- Rs.2,74,410/- 19022% Desai 5 Sambhaji Shamrao Patil 3,00,00,000/- Rs.2,08,110/- 14416% 6 Hanmant Bajirao Desai 5,16,30,000/- Rs.2,15,670/- 23947% 7 Pratap Ramdas Janugade 1,25,78,763/- Rs.4

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

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Price ('ALP') of the payment for services as 'NIL' by\ndisregarding the detailed benchmarking approach and the\nmethodology adopted by the Appellant in its TP documentation\nmaintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules').\n8. Upholding/confirming the action of Ld. TPO, in going beyond\nthe scope under section 92CA

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

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

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

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

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, ASSESSMENT UNIT DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Volkswagen Group Technology V National Faceless Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., S Assessment Center, Embassy Techzone, 9Th Floor, Assessment Unit, Delhi. 1.3 Congo Building, Rajiv Gandhi, Infotech Park, Infotech Park Hinjavadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcv1368L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

77,44,750 by holding that the international transaction of provision of IT services is not at arm's length price as envisaged under the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP erred in disregarding the fact that none of the conditions, as set out in Section

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 14A read with rule 8D and considering the facts of the case, I am not satisfied with calculation of the assessee…..” In these facts and circumstances, we are inconformity with the submissions of the ld.DR and accordingly, grounds No.2 including (a) & (b) of the Revenue are allowed. 11. Ground No.3 pertains to the transfer pricing adjustment

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961?\n\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/-\non product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

Transfer Pricing Officer for the Assessment year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 has accepted the transcation of payment of management fees paid to NLC by NLT and therefore the same having been made entirely for business consideration incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Hence no addition was held to be sustainable for the assessment year

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal) Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made