OMKAR RAMCHANDRA VELHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

TDS Statement OMKAR | 1 | Amount | 65,00,000\n1941A | Payment of consideration RAMCHANDRA | paid or\n(P) | for purchase of VELMAL | credited\nimmovable property\n(Section

RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act the term "payable" would include "amounts which are paid during the previous year" . 4.3.5 In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the appellant that provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act are attracted only in respect of sums, which are ‘payable’ at the end of the year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

TDS is made under this section. The use of word contractor will, in view of the observation made by various ITATs and the Bombay High Court, in no way alter the nature of work of the assessee.” 9. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

TDS on the compensation paid to Dipps Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and hence, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. 6] Without prejudice the assessee submits that if any disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia), the same should be restricted to 30% of the expenditure claimed and the action of the A.O. in disallowing entire expenditure

VIDHYASAGAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, TAMSA,TAMSA vs. ITO TDS, NANDED

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

65,700/- u/s 234E of the Act for the 1st & 4th Quarter of TDS statement in Form 26Q while processing of TDS return u/s 200A of the Act. During the appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted that the section

VIDHYASAGAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, TAMSA,TAMSA vs. ITO TDS, NANDED

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

65,700/- u/s 234E of the Act for the 1st & 4th Quarter of TDS statement in Form 26Q while processing of TDS return u/s 200A of the Act. During the appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted that the section

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 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

DEMAG CRANES AND COMPONENTS GMBH,PUNE vs. ACIT(IT)CIRCLE 1, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1115/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

TDS thereon. In the evince thereof, the appellant was called upon file return for AY 2011-12. Consequently, the case of the appellant was reopened by service of notice u/s 148 of the Act and an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by assessing the total income of the appellant of ₹3,53,65

JOHN DEERE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Acit , Pune Tower.No.14, Magarpatta City, Cyber City, Vs. Hadapsar,I.E.S.O., Pune – 411013 Pan: Aaacj4233B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

65,910/- . The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.779,48,85,800/- wherein he made an addition of Rs.3,73,19,882/- by making disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) the assessee through an additional ground