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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made the adjustment without adopting any prescribed method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions stating that determining ALP without following prescribed methods is unsustainable in law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "143(2)", "92C

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

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to the allocation of RHQ charges.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144C(5)", "143(3)", "144C(13)", "92CA(3)", "254", "144B", "144C(1)", "92C

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 92C prescribes 6 methods by which this exercise can be done by adopting most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transactions or functions performed by the parties. In the present case the revenue as well as appellant both has agreed that transactional net margin method is the most appropriate method for determination

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

price of the international transaction of "Payment of management services' without undertaking any economic analysis, thereby violating the provisions of Section 92C of the Act and Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 4 Erroneous rejection of documentary evidences submitted by the Appellant: 4.1 The Ld. AO/TPO pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP has erred

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 :

92C, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) 38[***] (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

price.\nThis cannot be accepted. Thus, as already\nstated we agree with the revenue that\nprovisions of section 92C(3) are attracted in\nthe instant case on this ground. As we have\ndecided this issue in favour of the revenue\non this ground, we do not feel it necessary to\ngo into other arguments of the revenuе. Опсе\nthe method

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

price.\n\nThis cannot be accepted. Thus, as already\nstated we agree with the revenue that\nprovisions of section 92C(3) are attracted in\nthe instant case on this ground. As we have\ndecided this issue in favour of the revenue\non this ground, we do not feel it necessary to\ngo into other arguments of the revenuе. Опсе\nthe

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 report for FY 2014-15. It is common practice for the lending organizations like banks to insist on a corporate guarantee by the parent company while lending substantial amount of loan to relatively weak subsidiaries. In this case, the appellant is a company incorporated in India and it has taken loans from five international lenders as listed above

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 report for FY 2014-15. It is common practice for the lending organizations like banks to insist on a corporate guarantee by the parent company while lending substantial amount of loan to relatively weak subsidiaries. In this case, the appellant is a company incorporated in India and it has taken loans from five international lenders as listed above

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

92C which is violation of law? Whether the rate of guarantee commission determined in the • judgement can be adopted as a valid comparable using other method under Rule 10AB? 3 ITA No.2744/PUN/2024 [A] 4. Charging of corporate guarantee commission would attract provision of section 92(3) of the act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

3) of the Act are satisfied and hence does not warrant re-determination of arm's length price by the Ld. TPO. The Appellant has complied with the provisions of Section 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act and the Ld. TPO has erred in disregarding the transfer

RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied before making an adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd., [A] 2. Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of Software Development Services 2.1 disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section

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

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\nPricing Officer (TPO) u/s.92CA(1) of the Act for determination\nof Arm's Length Price (ALP) with the reference to the\ninternational transactions reported in Form No.3CEB filed by\nthe assessee. Ld. TPO after considering the submission of\nthe assessee firstly observed that the ALP of the payment of\nRoyalty for Trademark fees is Nil as the assessee

ZS ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.211/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Zs Associates India Private V The Additional / Joint / Limited, S Deputy / Assistant Tower 3, World Trade Centre, Commissioner Of Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Income Tax, Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Pan:Aaacz2157Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade Date Of Hearing 11/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Assessment Order Dated 16.02.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017- 18, Emanating From Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 06.12.2021, Which In Turn Emanates From Draft Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) Of The Act

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 2,37,83,213/- to the international transaction relating to notional interest on delayed realization of receivables by the Appellant 3.1 The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in considering notional interest on receivables as a separate international transaction. Further, the learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred by rejecting the Assessee's claim that

M/S VODAFONE GLOBAL SERVICES P LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing (TP') Assessment proceedings. 10. The Assessee submits that the variation/reduction of 3 percent to be allowed while determining the arm's length price as envisaged under the proviso to Section 92C

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

92C which is violation of law? Whether the rate of guarantee commission determined in the judgement can be adopted as a valid comparable using other method under Rule 10AB? 4. Charging of corporate guarantee commission would attract provision of section 92(3) of the act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.80,51,30,298 and consequently, raising a demand of Rs.50,16,49,540. 2. That the TPO/DRP erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis carried on by the Appellant and instead independently determined the arm's length price in respect of provision of BPO services without fulfilling the jurisdictional pre-conditions in section 92C(3