REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

92[not being goodwill\nof a business or profession,] owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and\nused for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions\nshall be allowed\"\nIn this regard, it is observed that the words \"Inot being goodwill of a\nbusiness or profession, were inserted vide Finance Act 2021. Prior to this,\nthe term

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

92(1) of the Act provides that “Any income arising from an international\ntransaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price”. Section\n92C of the Act deals with the computation of ALP. Sub-section (1) of 92C, at the\nmaterial time, provides that: “The arm's length price in relation to an\ninternational transaction shall

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before proceeding further we will reproduce the unamended Section 92BA (prior to 1/4/2017) as under : Meaning of specified domestic transaction. 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee

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]

Transfer Pricing Proceedings, the TPO carried out fresh search of comparables using the same criteria as used by the assessee while bench marking the transaction. The TPO had not rejected any of the comparables selected by the assessee. However, the TPO had added certain comparables to the list of comparables on the ground that those comparables were functionally comparable

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 92 (3) of the Act. The appellant company craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 1.1 Additional Ground filed : “1] The learned A.O. / DRP erred in making an addition on protective basis of Rs.13,81,700/- by adopting the Arm's Length interest rate @ 2.40% as against 1.90% adopted

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that Quantum Addition has been deleted by ITAT for A.Y.2014-15 in Assessee's own case in

Transfer Pricing Officer has been deleted after the ITAT Order dated 19.08.2019 as per the Order u/s.154, dated 02.08.2020 giving effect to the order of the ITAT. 4.4 Since the Assessing Officer failed to establish in the impugned penalty order that Assessee had failed to furnish documents required, we agree with ld.CIT(A) that penalty needs to be deleted. Accordingly

DCIT, SWARGATE vs. ELICA PB WHIRLPOOL KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer has been deleted after the ITAT Order dated 19.08.2019 as per the Order u/s.154, dated 02.08.2020 giving effect to the order of the ITAT. 4.4 Since the Assessing Officer failed to establish in the impugned penalty order that Assessee had failed to furnish documents required, we agree with ld.CIT(A) that penalty needs to be deleted. Accordingly

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) by not adopting any of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. The method\nto determine the ALP adopted was not one of the prescribed methods for computing the ALP. It\nwas not even any method prescribed by the Board. At the relevant time, i.e. for A.Y. 2008-09\nSection

KATERRA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalikaterra Technology Services Vs Acit, Circle-2, Llp, Unit No.301 & 302, Pune. 3Rd Floor, Nextgen Avenue Building, Off Senapati Bapat Road, Shivajinagar, Bhamburda, Tq. Haveli, Pune. Pan: Aarfk 3667 L Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anurag Shrivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Findings Of Ld.Drp-3, Mumbai-2, Dated 19.05.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “The Ld. Assessing Officer ["Ao"], Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ["Tpo"] & Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Cdrp") Erred In Law & In Fact In Assessing The Total Income Of Inr 1,71,54,680 As Against Returned Income Of Inr 88,61,750 As Computed By The Appellant In Its Return Of Income. Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of The International Transaction Relating To Information Technology Enabled Services ("Ites”) - Inr 82,92,925 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Ld.Ao Is Erroneous & Bad In Law; 2. The Ld. Ao/Tpo/ Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Upholding Katerra Technology Services Llp

Transfer Pricing adjustment on account of the international transaction relating to Information Technology enabled Services ("ITeS”) - INR 82,92,925 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

92,38,550/- and setting off of brought forward losses of Rs.3,31,61,06,544/- determining income at Rs.Nil. The assessed income was taxed u/s 115JB of the IT Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 of the IT Act and proposed to rectify the assessment order dated 23.01.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

92,38,550/- and setting off of brought forward losses of Rs.3,31,61,06,544/- determining income at Rs.Nil. The assessed income was taxed u/s 115JB of the IT Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 of the IT Act and proposed to rectify the assessment order dated 23.01.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LTD.,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

transfer pricing study is highly facts based and it differs from case to case and that all the factors in Rule 108 have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot be adopted as such to the instant Appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

1) of the Act were issued\nand served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the requisite\ndetails. Since the assessee has entered into certain international transactions, the\nAssessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for\ndetermining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The\nTPO vide order dated

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

92,992 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the due dates for deposit are due on gazetted holiday and Sunday and hence the subsequent working day is to be considered as the due date in accordance with Section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1977 as well as the 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since