KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

section 194J of the Act. 12. As regards to the disallowance of selling discount of Rs.3,25,68,847/-, it is submitted

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

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

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

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

disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹ 31,22,300/- on the ground that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act have not been complied with by the assessee. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration declared total income of ₹ 1,63,82,191/-. The Assessing Officer referred the matter

KIRLOSKAR PROPRIETARY LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowing reimbursement of expenses of Rs.9,47,119/- paid to consultants, on account of non deduction of Tax at Source. He failed to appreciate the fact that the payments made to consultants are reimbursement of expenses hence the sections 194C or 194J

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

section 194J of the Act due to some future amendment with retrospective effect. Another aspect which was decided by the Hon‟ble High Court was that disallowance

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

section 194J of the Act due to some future amendment with retrospective effect. Another aspect which was decided by the Hon‟ble High Court was that disallowance

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

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that where income in the nature of royalty is payable to a resident-payee, then the payer is liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J. Failure to deduct and pay such tax in the Government exchequer entails, inter alia, disallowance

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

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

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 3.1. AO noticed that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 3.1. AO noticed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 3.1. AO noticed that

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance with the law. 3. Ground No.1 and its sub-grounds are with respect to disallowance of depreciation on computer software. 3.1. AO noticed that

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

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