ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. S.G. ANALYTICS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

permanent establishment in India. It was also contended that the services were rendered outside India and the professional fees paid to them acquired to the assessee outside India. The AO, did not agree to the above explanation and citing the provisions of section 195 of the Act contended that while paying the amounts 10 a Foreign Company

SG ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

permanent establishment in India. It was also contended that the services were rendered outside India and the professional fees paid to them acquired to the assessee outside India. The AO, did not agree to the above explanation and citing the provisions of section 195 of the Act contended that while paying the amounts 10 a Foreign Company

M/S. KASTURI RASHI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

disallowed. I have, therefore, reason to believe that income to the extent of 5 M/s. Kasturi Rashi Developers Rs.25 lac has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5. It can be seen from the above reasons that the AO received information from DGIT (Inv.), Pune giving a list of beneficiaries of accommodation entries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. NALCO WATER INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1218/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Permanent Establishment of the assessee was created in India? The Hon’ble Apex Court, after answering the question before it, further observed that a person may insist on quality control and confidentiality from the service provider and the service provider may also be required to act according to the quality control specification imposed by its customer. It went

BYK ASIA PACIFIC PTE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2110/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

Permanent Establishment (PE) 3 BYK Asia Pacific Pte Limited of the Singapore HO and offered for taxation the amount it received as mark-up on the cost of services provided. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction, inter alia, of Rs.1,22,43,873/- towards certain expenses paid to the Singapore HO without

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

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

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

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

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

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

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

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

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

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

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

Permanent Establishments (PEs) and suffered tax on such incomes in accordance with the domestic tax laws of the respective countries. The income earned by the above foreign branches, in addition to suffering tax in respective foreign jurisdictions, again came to be 19 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 included in the total income for the purposes of taxation in India. Since

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

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

permanent establishment of STSA in India, such payments are not considered as taxable in India.” ITA Nos.812 & 813/PUN/2017 9 CO Nos.30 & 31/PUN/2018 M/s. Seco Tools India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The Auditor in the audit report in Form No.3CEB had also reported in respect of said receipts which is placed at page 14 of Compilation No.I, which read as under

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and therefore, its income was not taxable in India. It also explained that from the nature of services being rendered, it could not be said that what assessee was paying to them was royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and / or under any of its clauses. The assessee also submitted precedents

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and therefore, its income was not taxable in India. It also explained that from the nature of services being rendered, it could not be said that what assessee was paying to them was royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and / or under any of its clauses. The assessee also submitted precedents

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and had entered into an agreement with Qwest Communications Inc outside India to provide lease lines worldwide to its entities. The learned Authorized Representative for the 11 T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd. assessee strongly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. (1) New Skies Satellite

M/S. MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1776/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and in view of the appeal filed by the assessee it was held by the Hon’ble Court that these expenses were allowable. However facts are little different in the present case as because in the present case the appellant was directed to handover all assets including database and security deposits of the customers

THE MULE PRAVANA ELECTRIC CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , AHEMDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

permanently closed and hence such depreciation was not allowable u/s. 32(1) of the Act. Further, for the identical reasons, the Establishment and General Expenses and Interest on Loans etc. claimed by the assessee appellant of Rs. 66,59,690/- was also not allowable as business expenses u/s. 37(1) of the Act as claimed by the appellant. In this

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

permanent character, the remedies arising from its violation are withdrawn after a certain lapse of time; interest reipublicaeutsifinislitium. The remedies are barred, though the right is not extinguished.// And if the law requires that a debtor should get a discharge before he can be compelled to pay, that requirement is not satisfied if he is merely told that requirement