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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

TDS in Revised Return iii. High Creditors/liabilities iv. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund v. Refund Claim vi. Unsecured Loans vii. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income viii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section ix. Foreign Outward Remittance x. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xi. Deduction from Total Income under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

36. Another reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR was in respect of amendment being retrospective or prospective and reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar (supra). However, in view of our decision in the paras hereinabove, where power is being enshrined upon the Assessing Officer

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

36. Another reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR was in respect of amendment being retrospective or prospective and reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar (supra). However, in view of our decision in the paras hereinabove, where power is being enshrined upon the Assessing Officer

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

36. Another reliance placed upon by the learned CIT-DR was in respect of amendment being retrospective or prospective and reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar (supra). However, in view of our decision in the paras hereinabove, where power is being enshrined upon the Assessing Officer

M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 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)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

TDS Certificates. Thus, it means assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 along with Audit Report. In the paper book, page no.64 to 83 is the Audit Report. The assessee had filed copies of the audit report before the ld.CIT(A) also. Similarly, the return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 (page 84 of the paper book

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

36(1)(va) of the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, therefore, there is no error on the order of the Assessing Officer so as to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10 11. So far as the applicability of provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income

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

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

v) The term „consideration‟ includes payment in kind. (vi)Without prejudice to the above, even the term „expenditure‟ would include payments in kind. (vii) Meaning of the term „lump sum‟ as used in section 35AB also includes payment of consideration in installments if the same is fixed upfront. (viii) Once the assesee incurs any cost towards acquisition of the know

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1

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

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

V. ADIT - 154 TTJ 649 (Pune-Trib) (Flag No A-22 of legal compilation)- As per Para 13 and 13.1 thereto, it has been held that any material testing charges paid are not the same as technical consultancy services u/s 9(l)(vii), since, no any human intervention existed in the "provision" of the testing processes. Diamond Services International