5, 77 to 82, 86, 100, 113, 123, 200, 561, 633 and 688 of 2005 Page 8 of 15 Infopark Limited v. ITO

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5795/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO (TDS), Ward-51(1), 208, 2nd Floor, Sikkha New Delhi. Mansion LSC, Savita Vihar, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: DELP17086G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6540/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-76(1), v. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 208, 2nd Floor, Sikkha Mansion LSC, Savita Vihar, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: DELP17086G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashwani Taneja, A…

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kant

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5795/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO (TDS), Ward-51(1), 208, 2nd Floor, Sikkha New Delhi. Mansion LSC, Savita Vihar, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: DELP17086G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.6540/DEL/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-76(1), v. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 208, 2nd Floor, Sikkha Mansion LSC, Savita Vihar, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: DELP17086G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashwani Taneja, A…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S I.T.C. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…that both payments were distinct. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in CIT v. NIIT Limited (2009) 318 ITR 289 (Del) and TRIL ITA 73, 75, 77 to 82, 86, 100, 113, 123, 200, 561, 633 and 688 of 2005 Page 8 of 15 Infopark Limited v. ITO (2016) 385 ITR 465 (Mad). In support of the proposition that the payment of royalty is essentially a payment for the ‘right to do business’, reliance was placed on the decision in Shankar Trading (P) Limited v. CIT 208 Taxman 526 (Del). In support of the contention that a term used in the statute should be contextually interpreted, reliance was placed by Mr. V…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S I.T.C. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…that both payments were distinct. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in CIT v. NIIT Limited (2009) 318 ITR 289 (Del) and TRIL ITA 73, 75, 77 to 82, 86, 100, 113, 123, 200, 561, 633 and 688 of 2005 Page 8 of 15 Infopark Limited v. ITO (2016) 385 ITR 465 (Mad). In support of the proposition that the payment of royalty is essentially a payment for the ‘right to do business’, reliance was placed on the decision in Shankar Trading (P) Limited v. CIT 208 Taxman 526 (Del). In support of the contention that a term used in the statute should be contextually interpreted, reliance was placed by Mr. V…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SINGH ENTERPRISES

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

…that both payments were distinct. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in CIT v. NIIT Limited (2009) 318 ITR 289 (Del) and TRIL ITA 73, 75, 77 to 82, 86, 100, 113, 123, 200, 561, 633 and 688 of 2005 Page 8 of 15 Infopark Limited v. ITO (2016) 385 ITR 465 (Mad). In support of the proposition that the payment of royalty is essentially a payment for the ‘right to do business’, reliance was placed on the decision in Shankar Trading (P) Limited v. CIT 208 Taxman 526 (Del). In support of the contention that a term used in the statute should be contextually interpreted, reliance was placed by Mr. V…