JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1,59,94,063 26,28,847 To be offered for Tax STCL (52,86,898) (59,28,195) (6,14,296) (No impact since entire loss is disallowable u/s. 94(7) 24. On perusal of the above, we note that the assessee declared short term capital gain at Rs.1,33,65,215/- and during the course of final assessment

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1,59,94,063 26,28,847 To be offered for Tax STCL (52,86,898) (59,28,195) (6,14,296) (No impact since entire loss is disallowable u/s. 94(7) 24. On perusal of the above, we note that the assessee declared short term capital gain at Rs.1,33,65,215/- and during the course of final assessment

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

1. CIT Vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Delhi 2. CIT Vs. Abbashboy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 28 (Bom.) 3. Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.) 4. Dhruv N. Shah 88 ITD 118 (Mumb Trib.) 12. We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on the issue of taxability of capital

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

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

195 from the amount paid to the foreign software suppliers. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT (IT) Vs. Sunray Computers (P) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 196 (Karn) by holding that the payment made for supply of software by L-Technologies, USA was Royalty and liable to be taxed in India u/s.9(1

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

195 TTJ 506 (Mumbai) b) CIT V. Metal & Chromium Platers P. Ltd. - 415 ITR 123 (Madras). c) Best Trading & Agencies Ltd. V. DCIT – 119 taxman.com 129 (Karnataka)”. 8. It has been urged through the additional ground that the deduction u/s.80IC be allowed in the computation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act in the light of sub-section (5) thereto

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

195 TTJ 506 (Mumbai) b) CIT V. Metal & Chromium Platers P. Ltd. - 415 ITR 123 (Madras). c) Best Trading & Agencies Ltd. V. DCIT – 119 taxman.com 129 (Karnataka)”. 8. It has been urged through the additional ground that the deduction u/s.80IC be allowed in the computation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act in the light of sub-section (5) thereto

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated 06.02.2015\n10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative