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

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

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

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

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

VII of the respective DTAAs as well as Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reference was made to the CBDT’s Circular issued and also several decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in ITA No.2808 of 2005, judgment dated 15.10.2011 and the contentions

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

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

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section

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

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

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section

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

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

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section

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

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

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section

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

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

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section

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) and 9(1)(vii

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

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. It was also pointed out that lease line charges were not ‘Fees for included services’ under Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The assessee claimed that where if any sum paid or payable to Non- resident was chargeable to tax under any provisions of the Income Tax Act, then TDS

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD-WEST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act.” 7. Following the above binding precedent, we hold that no TDS

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

vii) of the Act, going by which the software maintenance charges fall within the ambit of `fees for technical services’. 36. However, it is significant to note that a Protocol has been appended to the DTAA. Para 7 of the Protocol is relevant for our purpose, which reads as under:- `In respect of Articles ... 13 (Royalties, fees for technical services

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

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

vii) receipt of\ndesign engineering and testing services; (viii) insite pro\nregistration charges; (ix) user licence fees; (x) receipt of\nwarranty service; and (xi) receipt of training service,\nwith its AE. For the purpose of benchmarking, the\nassessee had aggregated all these transactions as\nrelated to its manufacturing activity and used TNMM as\nthe most appropriate method. The assessee worked

CMA CGM AGENCIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD WEST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act.” 7. Following the above binding precedent, we hold that no TDS

CMA CGM AGENCIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD WEST, MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act.” 7. Following the above binding precedent, we hold that no TDS

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