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

section 195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

section 195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

section 195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN INSTITUTE OF POLYTECHNIC,BEED vs. ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA.No.2049/PUN

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2637/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

TDS, Principal Officer, 001, Ghaziabad Vidya Nagri, Barshi Road, UttarPradesh Beed – 431 112 Maharashtra PAN : AABTM0727H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date of hearing : 22.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of two different assessees pertaining

SHRI SHIVAJI COLLEGE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA.No.2049/PUN

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2637/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

TDS, Principal Officer, 001, Ghaziabad Vidya Nagri, Barshi Road, UttarPradesh Beed – 431 112 Maharashtra PAN : AABTM0727H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date of hearing : 22.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of two different assessees pertaining

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), 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 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

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

112 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings

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

SHANKAR KASHINATH KADAM,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shankar Kashinath Kadam, Hingagaon Road, Kavthemahankal, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Sangli - 416405 …. Pan: Aumpk8234G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2(3), Sangli

section 147/148 of the Act. In the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received transportation charges of ₹ 4,00,72,889/- and had debited ₹ 3,91,67,733/- as transportation charges paid. The assessee was asked to 3 Shankar K. Kadam produce the details of transport charges paid. The Assessing Officer noted that there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL vs. M//S SBW LOGISTICS PVT LTD, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant M/S.Sbw Logistics Pvt. Ltd., 502, 5Th Floor, Pujit Plaza, Plot Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Panvel Circle, No.67, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Panvel. Navi Mumbai – 400614. Pan: Aajcs 6396 R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri K. Gopal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)(Nfac)[Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 12.09.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, An In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred By Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.7,00,000/- As Against Disallowance Of Cash Expenses Of Rs. 1,22,11,400/- By Not Appreciating That During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Was M/S.Sbw Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [R]

TDS was done. The question here is whether the said expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and whether it was revenue expenditure. In the absence of Bills, one cannot decide the nature of expenditure. Mere narration in the ledger is not sufficient. The Assessee had mentioned before the Ld.CIT(A) that

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

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

MR AJAY SADASHIV BHAGAT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-7(3) PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Ajay Sadashiv Bhagat Ito, Ward 7(3), Pune Kalas Gaion 112, Shivagi Chowk, Vs. Alandi Road, Dhighi Camp, Pune – 411015 Pan: Alhpb6151B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ravi Prakash Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-05-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

112, Shivagi Chowk, Vs. Alandi Road, Dhighi Camp, Pune – 411015 PAN: ALHPB6151B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Ravi Prakash Date of hearing : 30-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 26-05-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

RAGHULEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DICT, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1885/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., 1401, A-Wing, One Bkc, Plot C-66, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. Pan : Aadcr5942E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 22.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit Circle-1(2), Pune/623/2014-15/227, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Very Factual Position Had Existed On 30.05.2022 & 21.07.2022 As Well. We Thus Proceed Ex-Parte Against The Assessee.

TDS has been claimed in the subsequent year and this provision is not scientific basis and therefore case laws relied upon by the learned AR is totally distinguishable on facts. Therefore, I do not find reason as to why the provision for commission for Rs. 96,25,991/- should be allowed as deduction

KLAUS MULTIPARKING SYSTEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeal relating to assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.308 & 309/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

TDS out of payments made to Saraswati Transport Company on account of reimbursement of expenses of octroi charges. The assessee had utilized services of Saraswati Transport Company and had paid transport charges to the said concern. There is no default in deduction of tax at source out of aforesaid transport charges paid to said concern. However, the assessee was held