TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

established that the licensee, by making such payment, obtains all or any of the copyright rights of such literary work. Distinction has to be made between the acquisition of a "copyright right" and a "copyrighted article". Copyright is distinct from the material object, copyrighted. Copyright is an intangible incorporeal right in the nature of a privilege, quite independent

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permanent character, the remedies arising from its violation are withdrawn after a certain lapse of time; interest reipublicaeutsifinislitium.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

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock

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

permanent establishment in India, etc., are matters of merits which are to be decided in the assessment proceedings.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rolls Royce PLC vs. DIT (International Taxation) (2011) 339 ITR 147 (Del) upholding the view of the Tribunal in Rolls Royce PLC vs. DIT 2007-TII-32-ITAT

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

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom) for the proposition that before invoking the provisions of section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, where the original assessment was completed vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and held as under:- “17. We have heard the rival contentions

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (IT), WARD -4, PUNE vs. M/S SUNGUARD AVAILABILITY SERVICES LLP, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.258/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18

permanent establishment “PE” in India would not be fatal to the Revenue’s cause. He also quoted this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench order in Groupo Antolin Irausa SA V/s. DDIT ITA NO. 1442/PN/2017 that assessee’s services rendered to M/s. Wipro Ltd. in USA give rise to its taxability in India only. 5. We find no merit in Revenue

SANDVIK MACHINING SOLUTION AB, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS) SANDVIK TOLLING SEVERIGE AB),,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. On perusal of the details in return of income furnished, it was noticed that assessee had received Rs.59,66,099/- from Sandvik Asia Private Limited (SAPL) on account of IT support services

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

68 of the Act is\nhereby confirmed. This ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”\n19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us. In Ground No.1, assessee has raised\nthe issue that 1d.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.97,61,190/- made by the AO denying the claim of business\nloss/bad debt