M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

section 10A(7) and 10AA(9) of the Act. Short grant of credit for taxes deducted at source (‘TDS’) D. 10. erred in granting short credit of TDS of Rs 1,51,20,075 while considering credit for taxes paid by the Assessee Transfer Pricing adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the E. Act in respect of international transactions

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

section 10A(7) and 10AA(9) of the Act. Short grant of credit for taxes deducted at source (‘TDS’) D. 10. erred in granting short credit of TDS of Rs 1,51,20,075 while considering credit for taxes paid by the Assessee Transfer Pricing adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the E. Act in respect of international transactions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

section 10A(7) and 10AA(9) of the Act. Short grant of credit for taxes deducted at source (‘TDS’) D. 10. erred in granting short credit of TDS of Rs 1,51,20,075 while considering credit for taxes paid by the Assessee Transfer Pricing adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the E. Act in respect of international transactions

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

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

7) of\nSection 43(1) and Explanation-2 of Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS deducted by SAIPL, whether the said withholding tax is to be included as income of the assessee. The assessee had received royalty income of ₹ 19.04 crores from SAIPL, which was offered to tax. The said concern SAIPL had withheld the tax of ₹ 1.90 crores on royalty paid to the assessee company @ 10%. Under the provisions of section

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

7) to mean: `so much of the loss of …. the amalgamating company … under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (not being a loss sustained in a speculation business) which such …. amalgamating company….would have been entitled to carry forward and set off under the provisions of section 72 if the … amalgamation … had not taken place

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

7) to mean: `so much of the loss of …. the amalgamating company … under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (not being a loss sustained in a speculation business) which such …. amalgamating company….would have been entitled to carry forward and set off under the provisions of section 72 if the … amalgamation … had not taken place

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

7. Section 2(28A) of the Act defines 'interest' and this section reads thus: “(28A): “interest” means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred

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. ABL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK 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 आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 2501/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

TDS amounting to Rs.2,75,928/- was disallowed by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Assessee also shown bad debts amounting to Rs.83,83,977/- in the profit and loss account. On verification of the profit and loss account, AO noted that the said debts claimed are on account of advance given to the sub-contractors amounting

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

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

7. The next aspect taken up by Assessing Officer was the consideration paid for use or right to use software and he was of the view that the same was chargeable as ‘Royalty’ as per section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of DTAA. The Assessing Officer noted the provisions of section