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

TDS had to be deducted. He further pointed out that the CIT(A) vide para 2.7 at page 10 relied on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Cummins Inc. Vs. DDIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 286 (Pune – Trib.) and also decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics

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

TDS had to be deducted. He further pointed out that the CIT(A) vide para 2.7 at page 10 relied on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Cummins Inc. Vs. DDIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 286 (Pune – Trib.) and also decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

M/S. SUBU CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

164 in the paper book. 15. We find, the issue in the present appeal relates to the application of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee herein i.e. Mr. Jitendra K. Gupta is a shareholder in the company M/s. Subu Chem Pvt. Ltd. holding 90% shares of the said company. The assessee along with

JITENDRA KAPILDEO GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

164 in the paper book. 15. We find, the issue in the present appeal relates to the application of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee herein i.e. Mr. Jitendra K. Gupta is a shareholder in the company M/s. Subu Chem Pvt. Ltd. holding 90% shares of the said company. The assessee along with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. JITENDRA K. GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

164 in the paper book. 15. We find, the issue in the present appeal relates to the application of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee herein i.e. Mr. Jitendra K. Gupta is a shareholder in the company M/s. Subu Chem Pvt. Ltd. holding 90% shares of the said company. The assessee along with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M SUBU CHEM PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

164 in the paper book. 15. We find, the issue in the present appeal relates to the application of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee herein i.e. Mr. Jitendra K. Gupta is a shareholder in the company M/s. Subu Chem Pvt. Ltd. holding 90% shares of the said company. The assessee along with

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2 of Schedule VI-A and limited upto (9-10-2\nTotal (12a + 12b) [limited upto (9-10)]\n11\n1969624243\n12a\n83050000\n125\n5072090\n120\n99122090\n2.\nThe deduction u/s.10AA is as per Sr. No. 11 of 'Sch-Part B - TI'.\nFurther, the deduction u/s.10AA as per 'Sch-10AA' is Rs.\n196,96,24,249 which is the same amount

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

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

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS, any advance tax, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to provisions of sub-s. (2), an intimation will be sent to the assessee specifying the amount so payable and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand under

P P KHARPATIL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,URAN vs. CIRCLE - PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 P P Kharpatil Construction Pvt. V The Principal Ltd., S. Commissioner Of Income 656, At Post Chimer Taluka, Tax, Thane-1. Uran District, Raigad – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaccp4003B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Naina Chaurasia & Shri Sameer Gavli – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3)R.W.S. 144Bof The Income Tax Act, Dated 22.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

2. The A.O. shall give reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard.” 4.1 Thus, the basic contention of the ld.Pr.CIT is that AO has not carried out proper enquiries. However, we have gone through the paper book filed by assessee containing 252 pages. It is noted that the Assessing Officer had asked specific questions regarding 26AS, TDS deducted, Income

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DDIT,(IT) -I,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS on the payment. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under : “90. In conclusion, we hold that purchase of software by the assessee being copyrighted article is not covered by the term ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Where the assessee did not acquire any copyright in the software, is not covered under Explanation 2