TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS had been deducted, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment to tax, then issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2018 after recording reasons u/s 147. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income on 26.04.2018. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

INDIA SOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DDIT (INT. TAX.)-I,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1709 To 1712/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the said supply of software. (3) Further, assessee also raised the issue relating to correctness of retrospective application of Explanation 4 to section 9 of the I.T. Act. The nature of the payments according to the assessee did not constitute Royalty. Therefore, the provisions of section 195 has no application. Consequently, the order passed

INDIA SOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DDIT (INT. TAX.)-I,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1709 To 1712/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the said supply of software. (3) Further, assessee also raised the issue relating to correctness of retrospective application of Explanation 4 to section 9 of the I.T. Act. The nature of the payments according to the assessee did not constitute Royalty. Therefore, the provisions of section 195 has no application. Consequently, the order passed

INDIA SOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DDIT (INT. TAX.)-I,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1709 To 1712/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the said supply of software. (3) Further, assessee also raised the issue relating to correctness of retrospective application of Explanation 4 to section 9 of the I.T. Act. The nature of the payments according to the assessee did not constitute Royalty. Therefore, the provisions of section 195 has no application. Consequently, the order passed

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

TDS), who held that the assessee was a defaulter for not deducting tax at source from the remittances made for purchase of the software as the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act were attracted and the payment made by the assessee was in the nature of royalty on which tax ought to have been deducted