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

TDS under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately referred to various case laws which are in favour and against on the aforesaid issue. 59. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the CIT(A) had rejected the claim of assessee in turn, relying on the ratio laid

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 under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately referred to various case laws which are in favour and against on the aforesaid issue. 59. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the CIT(A) had rejected the claim of assessee in turn, relying on the ratio laid

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 under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately referred to various case laws which are in favour and against on the aforesaid issue. 59. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the CIT(A) had rejected the claim of assessee in turn, relying on the ratio laid

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

TDS under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately referred to various case laws which are in favour and against on the aforesaid issue. 59. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the CIT(A) had rejected the claim of assessee in turn, relying on the ratio laid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

254 had accepted the position that the purpose of foreign visits of the employees is only for the purpose of to take decision whether the machinery was suitable for business or not and the foreign visits by the employees were not undertaken in connection with the any acquired plant and machinery. It is also matter of record that the impugned

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

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

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

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

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD) , CIRCLE -3,, PUNE vs. M/S. BOBST INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacb7295F C.O. No.42/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.445/Pun/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, 126 To 132, Village Kasar Amboli, Ambadvet, Ghotawade Road, Tal-Mulshi, Pirangut, Pune-412108. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacb7295F बनाम / V/S. Jcit (Osd), Circle-1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Assessee By : Shri R. G. Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 17.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Filed The Cross Objection.

section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in absence of issuance of draft assessment order to the Assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble CIT(A) has: 2. erred in not appreciating the fact that the ld. TPO has modified the unadjusted operating margin of one of the comparable companies viz. International

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

TDS claim in original return. The assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, for which the Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm's length price of international transactions. The TPO in order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

254 (SC) and the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 74 Taxman 206 (Bombay) for the aforesaid proposition. In such circumstances, where the assessee has collected the contribution to the ERF from the owner (insured) then he is only acting as a custodian of the said fund and the said

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

254 (SC) and the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 74 Taxman 206 (Bombay) for the aforesaid proposition. In such circumstances, where the assessee has collected the contribution to the ERF from the owner (insured) then he is only acting as a custodian of the said fund and the said

M/S. AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PRIAVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.610/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 8. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid upward adjustment of ₹ 1.32 crores (approx.). 9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had prepared segmental accounts for different activities it had undertaken and benchmarked the international transactions embedded in the segment. Inviting our attention

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

TDS) (amounting to Rs.69,35,684) claimed by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings by way of filing revised computation of income. F. Transfer Pricing adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the Act in respect of International Transactions. 14. On the facts and in law, the learned AO and the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') erred in determining