Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No. 601 of 2009 ITA No. 602 of 2009 ITA No. 614 of 2009
Reserved on: December 04, 2009 Pronounced on: December 23, 2009
M/s. Egon Zehnder International Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Appellant
through : Dr. Rakesh Gupta with
Ms. Poonam Ahuja and
Ms. Mahima Agrawal, Advocates
VERSUS
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi -IV
. . . Respondent
through : Mr. N.P. Sahni with
Mr. P.C. Yadav and
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocates
CORAM :-
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Admit.
Following substantial questions of law arise for determination :- “ITA No. 601/2009
1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the act of the CIT in assuming jurisdiction and issuing notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in assuming/holding that PE of M/s. Egon AG existed in India?
3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-disposal of application under Section 195(2) of the Act will amount to its non-acceptance or rejection? 2009:DHC:5670-DB
of Rs.59.34 lacs on account of the share of the petitioner in the costs incurred by its non-resident holding company outside India, relating to information technology and other expenses, under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act?
ITA No. 602/2009 1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that onus of proving, with documentary evidence, that there is no PE of a Non-Resident in India lies on the assessee?
2) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in assuming/holding that PE of M/s. Egon AG existed in India?
3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-disposal of application under Section 195(2) of the Act will amount to its non-acceptance or rejection?
4) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,00,82,620/- on account of the share of the petitioner in the costs incurred by its non-resident holding company outside India, relating to information technology and other expenses, under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act?
ITA No. 614/2009 1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the act of the CIT in assuming jurisdiction and issuing notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in assuming/holding that PE of M/s. Egon AG existed in India?
3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-disposal of application under Section 195(2) of the Act will amount to its non-acceptance or rejection?
4) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the direction of the CIT for making of disallowance of expenses of Rs.59.34 lacs on account of the share of the petitioner in the costs incurred by its non-resident holding company outside India, relating to information technology and other expenses, under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act?”
Paper books shall be filed within three months in ITA No. 601/2009 only.
(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE
(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) 2009:DHC:5670-DB