DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. VENTURA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

928 consequential to non consideration / non-acceptance of analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report Erred on facts and in law by making the transfer pricing adjustment to its international transactions in connection with provision of call centre services and not considering/not accepting the comparability analysis documented in the transfer pricing study report for benchmarking purpose. Erred in facts

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

928/- - Rs.4,62,38,363/-) from Pandurang Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana and Utopian Sugars Pvt. Ltd. of which the assessee has claimed TDS were not bought to tax. This resulted in underassessment of the total income of the assessee thereby rendering the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. In view

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

price of corporate guarantee provided by the Appellant, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO has erred in the following - ignored the fact that the corporate guarantee provided to subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity and does not fall within the ambit of definition of international transaction as defined under Section 928 of the Act disregarding the fact that the provision

TRANSPERFECT SOLUTIONS I P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR -07, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appeal is time barred by 85 days. The ld. AR stated that the delay in filing the appeal was caused due to Covid pandemic situation prevailing in the country at the material time

BURCKHARDT COMPRESSION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.221/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Burckhardt Compression India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.304, Village: Kondhapuri, Pune – Nagar Road, Tal: Shirur, Pune-412209. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aadcb2058D …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avchat Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Drp/Tpo/Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of “1. Rs.2,08,64,219/- On Account Of Adjustment Made To International Transaction Of Payment Of Management Services & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Erred In Directing The Disallowance. The Assessee Company Has Made Payment To Its Associated 2. Enterprise Of Rs.2,08,64,219/- Towards Manufacturing Service Fees & There Is Error Of Considering In Assessment An Arm’S Length Price Of This Expenditure As ‘Nil’. 3. The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 In Pursuance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel, Dated 23.12.2015 Of The Ao In Case Of The Assessee Is Bad In Law. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

928/-. For TPO, the transaction of payment of Management Services Fee (MSF) of Rs.2,08,64,219/- with BC-AG is the solitary transaction for TP adjustments. 6. The assessee paid this amount to BG-AG towards reimbursement/recovery of actual cost incurred by the BC-AG. 7. In TP study by assessee, the TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

928/-. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment. On noticing that the respondent / assessee has reported the international transactions in Form No.3CB, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 8, Pune (hereinafter referred as the “Assessing Officer”) made a reference to the Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, (hereinafter referred as the “Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)”) u/s 92CA

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

transferred profits to the sister concerns by paying a higher price for purchases and charging a lower price for the sales effected to sister concerns he submitted that this finding is also wrong. Referring to page 52 of Paper Book 1, he drew the attention of the Bench to the chart giving the details of sales of bullion effected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ,, JALGAON vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

transferred profits to the sister concerns by paying a higher price for purchases and charging a lower price for the sales effected to sister concerns he submitted that this finding is also wrong. Referring to page 52 of Paper Book 1, he drew the attention of the Bench to the chart giving the details of sales of bullion effected

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

928,969/- was not covered under Royalties and or fees for technical services of the DTAA between India and USA as well as under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the Appellant Company was not required to withhold tax u/s. 195 on above amounts and accordingly, the demands raised of tax and interest

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

928,969/- was not covered under Royalties and or fees for technical services of the DTAA between India and USA as well as under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the Appellant Company was not required to withhold tax u/s. 195 on above amounts and accordingly, the demands raised of tax and interest

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

928,969/- was not covered under Royalties and or fees for technical services of the DTAA between India and USA as well as under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the Appellant Company was not required to withhold tax u/s. 195 on above amounts and accordingly, the demands raised of tax and interest

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

928,969/- was not covered under Royalties and or fees for technical services of the DTAA between India and USA as well as under the Income Tax Act and therefore, the Appellant Company was not required to withhold tax u/s. 195 on above amounts and accordingly, the demands raised of tax and interest

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that