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

194J of the Act. Having not done so, the AO invoked section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He noticed that out of such sum of Rs.2.41 crore, an amount of Rs.55,46,411/- was incurred against SEZ unit. The AO opined that the enhanced claim of deduction u/s.10AA due to disallowance

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

194J of the Act. Having not done so, the AO invoked section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He noticed that out of such sum of Rs.2.41 crore, an amount of Rs.55,46,411/- was incurred against SEZ unit. The AO opined that the enhanced claim of deduction u/s.10AA due to disallowance

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;

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.41,34,292/- 3. erred in upholding the action of the learned AO and holding that payment made for leased line charges is covered under section 194J

AJAY ENGINEERING & AGRI EQUIPMENT COMPANY,AURANGABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 194J. When the AO impliedly accepted the assessee’s contention, the assessment order cannot be held as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as there is no loss to the Revenue warranting disallowance

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

disallowing the payment of leased line /data link charges paid by the assessee for non deduction of tax at source by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This issue is no more res integra as the same is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

disallowing the payment of leased line /data link charges paid by the assessee for non deduction of tax at source by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This issue is no more res integra as the same is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

194J and 194H. The 4 Wockhardt Limited Audit Report of the assessee divulged that there was non deduction of tax at source and also short deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs.5,39,94,141/-. As against that, the assessee had added back only a sum of Rs.2,37,81,782/- u/s.40(a). This, in the opinion

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (service receipts as per 26AS and Total revenue from operations in P&L account). Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (service receipts as per 26AS and Total revenue from operations in P&L account). Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS),, PUNE vs. M/S. HONYWELL AUTOMATION (I) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA No.872/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is engaged in the business of process control and management controls on turnkey basis covering obtaining or supplying technological know

BMC SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts that transfer pricing adjustment to the international transactions of the Appellant and corporate tax adjustment made is on account of difference of opinion as to application of selection criterion for selection of comparable companies, incoherent approach, interpretation of the provisions, interpretation of case laws etc. IV Additional ground

DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.592 & 593/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Danfoss Power Solutions India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village- Kesnand, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aafcs2954P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.592/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

194J of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the addition on the ground that asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed, was not found in the books of accounts. Similarly, on the issue of disallowance

DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.592 & 593/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Danfoss Power Solutions India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village- Kesnand, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aafcs2954P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.592/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

194J of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the addition on the ground that asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed, was not found in the books of accounts. Similarly, on the issue of disallowance

RAVI YANTRIKI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD (5)(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) (as per 26AS) are more\nthan the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (Service receipts as per 26AS) and\ntotal revenue from operations in P&L Account. Accordingly, notice(s) u/s\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee in\nresponse to which, the assessee