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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

VII of the respective DTAAs as well as Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reference was made to the CBDT’s Circular issued and also several decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in ITA No.2808 of 2005, judgment dated

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

9. So far as the validity of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not adjudicate the same since he has deleted the addition on merit by observing as under: 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

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

THE JALGAON PEOPLE'S CO.OP BANK LTD,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.698/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 Pan : Aacat1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

68,490/- separately to the profit & loss account as bad debts written off, but the same have not been added back to the computation of income. However, in view of the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is established position in law that in case of an assessee to whom provisions of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

9 made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment made to M/s. Franco Itely through journal entry, Rs.24,500/- on account of difference in bank account statement, bad debts of Rs.5,10,422/-, Rs.8,42,243/- being the difference in balance confirmation and Rs.32,45,500/- being the difference in the stock introduced. The relevant observations

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

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

68 (Del), DCIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), Tata Consultancy Services State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)271 ITR 401 (SC), Dassault Systems KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT Vs. Reliane Industries Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 506 (Mumbai), ITAT. 8. On the receipt of the above

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee