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 and hence, the assessee company was not required to deduct any TDS on the said

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 and hence, the assessee company was not required to deduct any TDS on the said

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR 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.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was clarificatory observing as under:- “2.2.3 The appellant has raised the issue of the impossibility of performance regarding tax deduction in compliance with the retrospective legislations. In this connection, it may be mentioned that, in this case, the law has not created charge of the TDS

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the payments made by assessee were in the nature of royalty and hence, the assessee was liable to deduct withholding tax. The first and foremost is whether such retrospective amendment in the Act could lead to retrospective TDS

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the payments made by assessee were in the nature of royalty and hence, the assessee was liable to deduct withholding tax. The first and foremost is whether such retrospective amendment in the Act could lead to retrospective TDS

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

9(1)(vi) though retrospective, Section 40(a)(i) would not apply for non-deduction as the deductor could not anticipate such amendments and therefore there could be no default as per the law existing on the date of deduction. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is in relation to payment of lease line charges by the assessee

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

section 9(1)(vi) read with the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by the ITO (TDS

BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY: BARCLAYS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 9(1)(vi) made by the Finance Act 2012 albeit with retrospective effect form 01-06-1976 have rendered the amount chargeable to tax as `royalty’ in the hands of the recipient. But the position regarding deduction of tax at source by the payer is little different. TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. BARCLAYS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 9(1)(vi) made by the Finance Act 2012 albeit with retrospective effect form 01-06-1976 have rendered the amount chargeable to tax as `royalty’ in the hands of the recipient. But the position regarding deduction of tax at source by the payer is little different. TDS

SANDVIK ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.62/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dapodi, Pune – 411012 …. Pan: Aaccs6638K Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

TDS not deducted and paid by SAPL. 3 51/PUN/2014 The above IT Support payments have been erroneously held to be in the nature of Royalty/ Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as defined under section 9(1)(vi

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEMS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2011/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 9(1)(vi)/9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the DTAA between India and USA/UAE/SPAIN/SINGAPORE/ MALAYSIA/ GERMANY/THAILAND/CANADA/IRELAND/UK as such. 2. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that since the assessee did not produce any agreement regarding to grossing up / non grossing

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2011/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 9(1)(vi)/9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as Article 12 of the DTAA between India and USA/UAE/SPAIN/SINGAPORE/ MALAYSIA/ GERMANY/THAILAND/CANADA/IRELAND/UK as such. 2. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that since the assessee did not produce any agreement regarding to grossing up / non grossing

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.

section 9(1)(vi) Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the Assessee was liable to deduct TDS?\ 6. The Ld.CIT

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.

section 9(1)(vi) Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the Assessee was liable to deduct TDS?\ 6. The Ld.CIT

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE -1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Vs. Dcit, Range-1(1), Limited, Pune 407, City Tower Floor, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act in as much as it also talks of `consideration for the use or, or the right to use, any copyright 34 CMA CGM Agencies India Pvt. Ltd., of literary, artistic or scientific work..’ . While discussing the Royalty aspect under the Act supra, we have held that payment for use of software made

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

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

TDS u/s 195 can't be effected on the basis of retrospective amendment - As per the decision of the Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs NGC Network (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA No 397 of 2015) [Para 3(d) and 3(e) thereto], irrespective of the retrospective amendment of section 9(1)(vi

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

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

TDS u/s 195 can't be effected on the basis of retrospective amendment - As per the decision of the Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs NGC Network (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA No 397 of 2015) [Para 3(d) and 3(e) thereto], irrespective of the retrospective amendment of section 9(1)(vi

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

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

TDS u/s 195 can't be effected on the basis of retrospective amendment - As per the decision of the Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs NGC Network (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA No 397 of 2015) [Para 3(d) and 3(e) thereto], irrespective of the retrospective amendment of section 9(1)(vi