SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

permanent establishment\nissues, tax implications of M & A activities, transfer pricing, etc.;\nMonitoring of worldwide tax rate and optimization of tax burden

M/S. FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD, (FROMERLY KNOWN AS SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1695/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Fis Solutions (India) Private Limited. Formerly Known As Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited. Westend Centre One, Survey No. 169/1, Sector Ii, Aundh, Pune-411 007. Pan : Aaace7476K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Transfer Pricing Adjustment” ground has also prayed for inclusion of one comparable i.e. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. in the final set of comparables. INCLUSION OF COMPANY AS COMPARABLES TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SEGMENT (E) Akshay Software Technologies Ltd :- 20. The TPO has not considered this company as comparable at running Page 214 Para (i) by observing as follows: “i. Akshay

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

price of the article and, therefore, cannot be considered as royalty either under the Act or under the DTAA. This issue really is the key to the entire controversy and we may now proceed to address this issue. 156. We must look into the meaning of the word "copyright" as given in the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 14 of this

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

price of the article and, therefore, cannot be considered as royalty either under the Act or under the DTAA. This issue really is the key to the entire controversy and we may now proceed to address this issue. 156. We must look into the meaning of the word "copyright" as given in the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 14 of this

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

price of the article and, therefore, cannot be considered as royalty either under the Act or under the 10 Tibco Software B.V. A.Y. 2014-15 DTAA. This issue really is the key to the entire controversy and we may now proceed to address this issue. 156. We must look into the meaning of the word "copyright" as given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. NALCO WATER INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1218/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

transfer pricing rules on services. New service regulations were proposed in 2003, which took the form of Temporary regulations in 2006, and eventually Final Regulations for Treatment of Services under Section 482 (USA Regulation 2009) were issued. The final regulations are effective for taxation years beginning after 31.7.2009. It has been mentioned in the 2009 Regulation that: `Section

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

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and had entered into an agreement with Qwest Communications Inc outside India to provide lease lines worldwide to its entities. The learned Authorized Representative for the 11 T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd. assessee strongly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. (1) New Skies Satellite

NORTON LIFELOCK INC. (EARLIER KNOWN AS SYMANTEC CORPORATION ),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Permanent Establishment in India. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “11. Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and the USA defines the term Royalties to mean: “(a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic

NORTON LIFE LOCK INC,PUNE vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Permanent Establishment in India. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “11. Article 12(3) of the DTAA between India and the USA defines the term Royalties to mean: “(a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic

M/S.SANDVIK TOOLING SVERIGE AB,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2523/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

price of an article and hence could not be considered as royalty in the hands of the recipient under the DTAA. 12 M/s. Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB 13. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is observed that the assessee transferred a limited right in the CAD/CAM to SAPL. There was no transfer of copyright

NORTONLIFELOCK INC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS: SYMANTEC CORPORATION),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Norton Lifelock Inc., Vs. Dcit (It), (Earlier Known As Symantec Corporation, Circle-2, Pune C/O. S.R.B.C & Associates Llp, C-401, Panchshil Tech Park, Near Don Bosco School, Yerwada, Pune - 411006 Maharashtra Pan : Aaqcs1868P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Nageswar Rao Revenue By Shri Navin Gupta Date Of Hearing 08-01-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11-01-2021 आदेश / Order

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The AO show caused the assessee as to why the receipts from sale of software licenses should not be taxed as Royalty. The assessee tendered explanation elaborating that the software licenses sold by it were meant for internal business purpose of the users and not for commercial exploitation. It was further stated that the assessee

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

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

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

price (Rs) (Rs) Clause 12(a) Clause 12(b) Clause 12(c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for IT 19,414,642 19,414,642 Refer Note 7 Limited, support to Appendix Mumbai-Pune services C Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 2 Walter Tools Receipt for IT 310,396 310,396 Refer Note 7 India Private

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

price of an article, it held that the same could not be considered as 9 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 royalty either under the Act or the DTAA. Similar view has been reiterated in CIT Vs. ZTE Corporation (2017) 392 ITR 890 (Delhi). 9. It can be seen from the discussion made in the immediately preceding paragraphs that there

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

price of an article and hence could not be considered as royalty in the hands of the recipient under the DTAA. 13. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is observed that the assessee transferred a limited right in the CAD/CAM to SAPL. There was no transfer of copyright or use of any copyright. As against the requirement

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The assessee demonstrated that the payments do not require any tax deduction at source in view of the principle of accrual of income. The assessee also mentioned that there is no DTAA provisions between the assessee and Taiwan and, therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act become relevant. Mentioning that