TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

TDS‟) amounting to INR 2,47,666. Ground No.7: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. Briefly, the facts are under : 4. The Appellant TIBCO Software

DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE, PUNE vs. EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 3.4.6 The controversy therefore boils down essentially to the question as to whether the provisions of Article 7 apply as has been claimed by the Appellant to apply or Article 23 (and 27) as have been advocated and applied by the Assessing Officer? 3.4.9 Judicial Precedent in the case of Bangkok Glass Industry

DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE, PUNE vs. EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 3.4.6 The controversy therefore boils down essentially to the question as to whether the provisions of Article 7 apply as has been claimed by the Appellant to apply or Article 23 (and 27) as have been advocated and applied by the Assessing Officer? 3.4.9 Judicial Precedent in the case of Bangkok Glass Industry

DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE, PUNE vs. EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 3.4.6 The controversy therefore boils down essentially to the question as to whether the provisions of Article 7 apply as has been claimed by the Appellant to apply or Article 23 (and 27) as have been advocated and applied by the Assessing Officer? 3.4.9 Judicial Precedent in the case of Bangkok Glass Industry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. S.G. ANALYTICS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

TDS was not deducted as the payment was made to a person I company who was non- residence working abroad having no permanent establishment

SG ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

TDS was not deducted as the payment was made to a person I company who was non- residence working abroad having no permanent establishment

M/S. KASTURI RASHI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

permanent establishment in India, etc., are matters of merits which are to be decided in the assessment proceedings.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rolls Royce PLC vs. DIT (International Taxation) (2011) 339 ITR 147 (Del) upholding the view of the Tribunal in Rolls Royce PLC vs. DIT 2007-TII-32-ITAT

BYK ASIA PACIFIC PTE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2110/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

Permanent Establishment (PE) 3 BYK Asia Pacific Pte Limited of the Singapore HO and offered for taxation the amount it received as mark-up on the cost of services provided. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction, inter alia, of Rs.1,22,43,873/- towards certain expenses paid to the Singapore HO without

MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE -NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2410/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Works Division, Parbhani-431 401 Tan : Nskm04669A .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

established. For the sake of completeness, the observations 5 A.Y.2011-12 and findings of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred case are as follows: “17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In this bunch of appeals, the issue which arises for adjudication is against the levy of penalty under section 272A

DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICE,,UDGIR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.319/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : - Deputy Collector Office, The Jcit, Tds, Range, Main Road, Udgir, Tq.Udgir, Vs Nashik. Dist.Latur - 413517. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad Arising Out Of Assessing Officer’S Order Section 272A(2)(K) R.W.S 200(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2018. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 05/02/2014 Levied Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Delay In Filling Quarterly Statements Of Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) U/S.200(3) Of The Act.

Permanent Accountant Number except in the case where the deductor was office of Government and also quote PAN number of all the deductees. ITA No.319/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Collector Office Vs. JCIT, TDS, Range, Nashik (A) Further, the deductor was required to furnish the particulars of tax paid to the Central Government including Book I.T.A. No. 1999/Mum/2017 Identification