ALCATEL-- LUCENT TRADE INTERNATIONAL AG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3008/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 July 2023AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute with the Department by paying the outstanding demand. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alcatel-Lucent Trade International AG, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee raised grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the AO and the classification of receipts as fees for technical services.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved the jurisdiction of the AO and whether receipts constituted fees for technical services. However, the appeal was withdrawn before these issues were adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 9(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.07.2023Pronounced: 19.07.2023

Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.

The appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 16.03.2015 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessing Year 2008-09.

ITA No.-3008/Del/2015 Alcatel-Lucent Trade International AG

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act ) passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), New Delhi (“Ld. AO”) is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the receipts earned by the Appellant should be treated as ‘fee for technical services under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Indo-Swiss DTAA. 2.1 That without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the payments made to the Appellant are for the purposes of making or earning income from a source in India as provided under Section 9(1)(vii)(c) of the Act. 2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the consideration sought to be taxed by the Ld. AO has already been subjected to tax in India in the hands of its group entity viz. Alcatel Lucent India Limited.”

3. Vide application dated 31.01.2022, the assessee sought permission for admittance of the following additional ground:

“That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 28.02.2011 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio and barred by limitation.”

4.

The appeal of the assessee came up for hearing on 19.07.2023 before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted a letter dated 19.07.2023 requesting for withdrawal of the appeal in order to buy peace and to settle the dispute with Department by payment of outstanding demand. The Ld. DR had no objection.

ITA No.-3008/Del/2015 Alcatel-Lucent Trade International AG

5.

We accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →