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 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

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

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

2) of section 23, the amount of deduction 33[or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amount of deduction]shall not exceed thirty thousand rupees : Provided further that where the property referred to in the first proviso is acquired or constructed with capital borrowed on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 and such acquisition

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

2) of section 23, the amount of deduction 33[or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amount of deduction]shall not exceed thirty thousand rupees : Provided further that where the property referred to in the first proviso is acquired or constructed with capital borrowed on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 and such acquisition

MARWADI NAVYUVAK VACHANALAYA ,LATUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandamarwadi Navyuvak Vachanalaya Cit(Exemption), Pune Marwadi Navyuvak Vachanal, Vs. Main Road, Latur – 413512 Pan: Aabtm2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

195 ITD 200 (Pune-Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessee trust, registered under section 12A and engaged in providing medical help, education help and relief to poor had let out its halls and buildings for earning rental income so as to fund its charitable objects, proviso to section 2

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

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

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

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

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\n11\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\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

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

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

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

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

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

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

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

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

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

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

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

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer