DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\n\nconfirming the action of TPO making

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

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 of the above facts, the overall assessment order 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 is erroneous and is prejudicial

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 Officer (TPO) for\ndetermining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The\nTPO vide order dated 28.07.2021 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act proposed an\nupward adjustment of Rs.1,78,97,091/- to the international transactions relating to\nthe export of traded spares to the Associated Enterprises (AEs). Subsequently the\nAssessing Officer completed

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

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on his decision in preceding AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case involving the identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price in respect of international transactions reported for the relevant assessment year. Then paragraph 4, along with its sub paragraphs 4.1 to 47 deal with disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the context of commission exceeding Re. 18.00 crore paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, even though

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 , PUNE vs. MUBEA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS iii. Investments/advances/loans iv. Sales turnover/receipts v. Custom duty paid 2 vi. Foreign remittance vii. International transaction(s) viii. Investment in immovable property 3. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) were issued and served upon the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite

MAN TRUCK & BUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.814/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Dcit, Circle 7, Man Truck & Bus India Private Limited, Pune Level 3, Malpani Agile,Pan Card Club Road, Baner, Pune-411045 Maharashtra Pan-Aaecm6932E Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 33,03,75,100 wahout appreciating that the same is not sustainabile owing to the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) executed by the Appellant with the CBDT on 21 December 2021 and the modified return of income fled by the Appellant on 31 March 2022. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S PRATHAM CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.M/S. Pratham Constructions, Vs Pr.Cit (Central), Pune. 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan: Aabfp 3894 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Pune (For Short, „Pcit‟), Dated 23.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

TDS and the applicability of deemed rent on the unsold flats. Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is very precise and clear that “For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

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

BRAHMAN SABHA KARVEER,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

TDS made, PF and Professional Tax deducted with evidence for the last 3 years. 2.3. You are hereby further requested to ensure that: i. Self-certified copies of attachments as per the provisions of Rule 11AA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as applicable, are required to be submitted. Please also note that the application cannot be approved unless

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

price as per work completed. The mere fact that TDS was deducted shows that the relationship between the assessee, purportedly the developer and the government is that of contractor and contractee. ii) The assessee company has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principals, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principals

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

price as per work completed. The mere fact that TDS was deducted shows that the relationship between the assessee, purportedly the developer and the government is that of contractor and contractee. ii) The assessee company has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principals, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

price as per work completed. The mere fact that TDS was deducted shows that the relationship between the assessee, purportedly the developer and the government is that of contractor and contractee. ii) The assessee company has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principals, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principals

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

transfer of the asset.” 14. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee in the paper book reveals that the assessee has received advances by cheque in respect of those three flats as per agreement and the sale deeds were executed subsequently where the market price is more than the agreement value. Since the assessee has received a part