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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of payment of software on the ground that the assessee had purchased copyright in the said software. However, the plea of assessee before the authorities below and even before us is that it had only made payment for purchase of copyrighted software i.e. off-the-shelf software

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of payment of software on the ground that the assessee had purchased copyright in the said software. However, the plea of assessee before the authorities below and even before us is that it had only made payment for purchase of copyrighted software i.e. off-the-shelf software

DESIMUS FINANCIALS LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Desimus Financials Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Moga Road, Opp. Punjab Kesari, Pune Bagha Purana, Dist. Maoga, Punjab – 142 038 Pan Aaack9547K Appellant Respondent

201(1) of the Act along with section 40(a)(ia) with the effect that if the payee has included the interest received from the payer in his total income and filed the return with taxes paid thereon, then the payer can‟t be treated as an assessee in default and no consequential disallowance

JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The next contention of learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that while deciding appeal against order passed under section 201

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The next contention of learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that while deciding appeal against order passed under section 201

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 201(1A) of the Act is thus, cancelled.” 17 38. In view of the issue being settled, we find no merit in the ground of appeal No.6 raised by the Revenue. The assessee was not obliged to deduct tax out of aforesaid payments made to associated enterprises and hence, has not defaulted in not deducting tax at source. Consequently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 201(1A) of the Act is thus, cancelled.” 17 38. In view of the issue being settled, we find no merit in the ground of appeal No.6 raised by the Revenue. The assessee was not obliged to deduct tax out of aforesaid payments made to associated enterprises and hence, has not defaulted in not deducting tax at source. Consequently

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of payment of software on the ground that the assessee had purchased copyright in the said software. However, the plea of assessee before the authorities below and even before us is that it had only made payment for purchase of copyrighted software i.e. off-the-shelf software

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ZEAL INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

section 201, hence the assessee was not liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).The AO rejected the both arguments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of payment of software on the ground that the assessee had purchased copyright in the said software. However, the plea of assessee before the authorities below and even before us is that it had only made payment for purchase of copyrighted software i.e. off-the-shelf software

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of payment of software on the ground that the assessee had purchased copyright in the said software. However, the plea of assessee before the authorities below and even before us is that it had only made payment for purchase of copyrighted software i.e. off-the-shelf software

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SILVER JUBILEE MOTORES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-6, Vs. Silver Jubilee Motors Ltd., Pune 12, Moledina Road, Camp, Pune 411001 Pan : Aahcs8736P Appellant Respondent

disallowance. On a conjoint reading of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and the first proviso to section 201

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with