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

72 (SC). (viii) As regards, the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s 37(1), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- made to Sakal Social Foundation. (ix) With regard to claim for allowance of depreciation on windmill of Rs.56,11,914/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that civil construction and electrical work

EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.226/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Bhosari, Pune-411026. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaace4574C बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1). ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 24.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Raised Mainly Two Issues By Way Of Various Grounds Of Appeal. The First Issue Relates To The Disallowance Of Marketing & Sales Promotion Expenses & The Second Issue Relates To The Claim Of Credit For Foreign Tds Of Rs.73,72,181/-. 3. We Shall Now Take Up The Issue-Wise Adjudication For Disposing Of The Appeal Of The Assessee.

72,181/- as the TDS relating to the interest offered to tax in A.Y. 2011-12. 2.2] The assessee in appeal before the learned CIT(A) claimed credit of the TDS amount relating to the interest pertaining to A.Y. 2011 - 12. The learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue in para 6 - 6.2 of his order. According to him, Emcure

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

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

section 40(a). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance without appreciating that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 by the assessee and not the "provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that

DHAVALKUMAR DHULAPPA GAT,BANGALORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

72,987 was never under dispute. The only issue was that\ndeduction under section 54 was not claimed in the return of income.\n4.\nThe appellant had relied upon the legal precedents and CBDT circular\nwherein it was held that the genuine exemption/deduction or credit\nfor TDS

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

72 if the … amalgamation … had not taken place’. It is thus graphically clear from the prescription of section 72A, that it applies only in respect of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. The benefit of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company, which would have been otherwise available

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

72 if the … amalgamation … had not taken place’. It is thus graphically clear from the prescription of section 72A, that it applies only in respect of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. The benefit of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company, which would have been otherwise available

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

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS Form 63,57,095/- 24Q, Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS Form 63,57,095/- 24Q, Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

72,920/- under section 234D of the Act. 5 b. The learned ACIT erred in not appreciating that as no refund had been received by the appellant for the aforesaid assessment year, no interest could be charged under section 234D of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. a. The learned ACIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

72,31,464/-; (iii) disallowance of payments to HUL on account of Cost on Employee deputation for non-deduction of tax of Rs.1,84,43,055/-; and (iv) disallowance of payments to HUL on account of Selling discount for non- deduction of TDS of Rs.5,13,20,724/-. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant company has chosen

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

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

72,116/- iv. Services- Consultancy 6,71,833/- v. Repairs and Maintenance, 98,62,173/- testing and Technical Consultation Total 9,44,43,764/- 3.2.1 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in holding that the assessee should have deducted TDS u/s.195 on the amount of Rs.7,51,02,411/- paid to AB Tetra Pak Sweden on account of Provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

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

72,116/- iv. Services- Consultancy 6,71,833/- v. Repairs and Maintenance, 98,62,173/- testing and Technical Consultation Total 9,44,43,764/- 3.2.1 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in holding that the assessee should have deducted TDS u/s.195 on the amount of Rs.7,51,02,411/- paid to AB Tetra Pak Sweden on account of Provisions

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

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

72,116/- iv. Services- Consultancy 6,71,833/- v. Repairs and Maintenance, 98,62,173/- testing and Technical Consultation Total 9,44,43,764/- 3.2.1 The learned Assessing Officer / DRP erred in holding that the assessee should have deducted TDS u/s.195 on the amount of Rs.7,51,02,411/- paid to AB Tetra Pak Sweden on account of Provisions

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

TDS would be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant be allowed a claim towards education cess & secondary & higher education cess amounting to Rs.8,69,48 904/- paid by it during the previous year 2014-15 in the computation of total income. 6. In the facts