DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

section 40(a)(ia). He further submitted that from the books of account of the asssessee it was established that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 and not the "provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. He submitted that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence that TDS was deducted during the assessment year

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. This contention of assessee was also not accepted by Assessing Officer as once the income was chargeable to tax as ‘royalty’ or ‘FTS’ under the DTAA, it was taxable on the gross basis and no deduction for the expenses incurred for the same were to be allowed. Further, the assessee had not submitted documentary evidence to prove that above

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. This contention of assessee was also not accepted by Assessing Officer as once the income was chargeable to tax as ‘royalty’ or ‘FTS’ under the DTAA, it was taxable on the gross basis and no deduction for the expenses incurred for the same were to be allowed. Further, the assessee had not submitted documentary evidence to prove that above

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. This contention of assessee was also not accepted by Assessing Officer as once the income was chargeable to tax as ‘royalty’ or ‘FTS’ under the DTAA, it was taxable on the gross basis and no deduction for the expenses incurred for the same were to be allowed. Further, the assessee had not submitted documentary evidence to prove that above

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. This contention of assessee was also not accepted by Assessing Officer as once the income was chargeable to tax as ‘royalty’ or ‘FTS’ under the DTAA, it was taxable on the gross basis and no deduction for the expenses incurred for the same were to be allowed. Further, the assessee had not submitted documentary evidence to prove that above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

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

70,250/-. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 15. So far as the second issue is concerned, the same relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,27,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (grounds of appeal

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

TDS thereupon. The Revenue’s case in light of the departmental authorities stand throughout is that the same represents “Royalty” for use of copyright than purchase of copyrighted article claim on behalf of the assessee’s which attracts Section 40(a)(i) disallowance. We find that instant second issue also stands adjudicated in tribunal’s earlier order (supra) in assessee

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

70 (SC), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 73 of the order, according to which as per the provisions of section 151(ii) of the new regime where more 5 than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority for giving approval is Principal Chief

NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORPORATION INDIA P LTD ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2 , PUNE

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

section 244A of the Act on the income tax refund arising due to TDS credit of INR 70,53,096.- 2.2 On the facts

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

TDS applicability). The Assessing Officer accepted whatever assessee stated without enquiring into glaring contradictory facts which require detailed enquiry and application of mind in correct manner having regard to statutory provisions invogue. All these facts, as a whole, clearly establish that neither there was any examination of any books of accounts nor any enquiry on essential and vital points

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

70,798/- is disallowed u/s.14A of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee.” 17.1 Thus, it can be seen that the AO has not specified the sub- rule of Rule 8D under which the disallowance has been made. 17.2 The ld.AR relied on the order of ITAT Pune in assessee’s own case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

70 ITD 634 (Pune)] “5. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the additional claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of undisclosed receipts. 13. The issue in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Naresh T. Wadhwani (supra) and following the same

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

70 ITD 634 (Pune)] “5. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the additional claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of undisclosed receipts. 13. The issue in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Naresh T. Wadhwani (supra) and following the same

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

70 ITD 634 (Pune)] “5. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the additional claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of undisclosed receipts. 13. The issue in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Naresh T. Wadhwani (supra) and following the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

70 ITD 634 (Pune)] “5. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the additional claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of undisclosed receipts. 13. The issue in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Naresh T. Wadhwani (supra) and following the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

70 ITD 634 (Pune)] “5. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the additional claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in respect of undisclosed receipts. 13. The issue in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Naresh T. Wadhwani (supra) and following the same