CIT v. Angelique International Ltd.

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

…ly, the question of disallowing the payment under Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS did not arise.” 5.9 Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vs. Angelique International Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 17 Delhi High Court – [2012] 359 ITR 9, it was held as under: “10. So long as the circulars were in force, it aided in uniform and proper administration and application of the provisions of the Act. Read in this manner, we do not think the respondent- assessee was in default and had failed to deduct at source, though it was mandated and required. The respondent was entitled to rely upo…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

…ly, the question of disallowing the payment under Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS did not arise.” 5.9 Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vs. Angelique International Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 17 Delhi High Court – [2012] 359 ITR 9, it was held as under: “10. So long as the circulars were in force, it aided in uniform and proper administration and application of the provisions of the Act. Read in this manner, we do not think the respondent- assessee was in default and had failed to deduct at source, though it was mandated and required. The respondent was entitled to rely upo…

Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

…ment vested in India, which are not satisfied and hence withdrawal of earlier circular issued by CBDT has not been of assistance to Revenue in disallowing such expenditure. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Angelique International Ltd., [2013] 359 ITR 9 (Delhi) has categorically held that payments made to foreign agents prior to the applicability of Circular No.7 of 2009 could not be br ought to tax in India. 68. The issue of commission payments not being in the nature of FTS and hence not liable for any deduction of tax at source is also no longer res-integra. This Hon'ble Tribunal in the case o…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

…ar 2010-11 coordinate bench in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-52, Kolkata v. Subhotosh Majumder [2016] 65 taxmann.com 42 (Kolkata - Trib.) where in following the decision of Honourable Delhi high court in CIT v. Angelique International Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 9/219 Taxman 104/38 taxmann.com 425 (Delhi) has held that:- "20. From the above facts and circumstances of the case and also precedents cited above, we are of the view that till amendment in Explanation to sec. 9(2) oj the Act. the prevailing legal position was that unless the technical services were rendered in India, the fees for such services coul…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharani Enterprises, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross- Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 5806/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2011-12) ACIT Vs Maharani Enterprises Circle-28(1) 20-A, Gadodia Market, New Delhi Khari Baoli (APPELLANT) Delhi AAMFM4846Q (RESPONDENT) C.O .No. 115/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2011-12) Maharani Enterprises Vs ACIT 20-A, Gadodia Market, Circle-28(1) Khari Baoli New Delhi Delhi AAMFM4846Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Adv Date of Hearing 19.07.2018 Date of Pronoun…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Circle 31(1), New Delhi Plot No. 29, Dlf Indl. Area, Phase-I, Faridabad Pan : Aafpj2485F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Circle 31(1), New Delhi Plot No. 29, DLF Indl. Area, Phase-I, Faridabad PAN : AAFPJ2485F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA Date of hearing 21.12.2017 Date of pronouncement 29.12.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 21/04/2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ne…

The Pr. Commissionr of Income Tax-6 vs. Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

…ccepted the assessee’s contentions and restricted the latter addition to only `6,75,906/-. The ITAT, however, granted full relief on the ground that the facts and circumstances were clearly covered by the ruling in CIT v. Angelique International Limited 219 Taxmann 104. It is submitted on the first question that the AO had correctly disallowed the amounts because there was no material to say that Sh. Barara in fact acted merely as a procurer of orders. The amount was clearly income in his hand and had to be added back. The assessee’s counsel appearing on advance notice points out that Sh. I.S. Barara…

Central Electronics Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), 3Rd Floor, C.R. Central Electronics Ltd., 4, Vs. Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Uttar Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Pradesh. (Pan:Aaacc1262G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…of the Act and sum paid as commission to agents was not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the foreign tax agent. He further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Angelique International Ltd., 359 ITR 9 (2013) (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. EON Technology Pvt. Ltd., 343 ITR 366 (2013) (Del). He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Northern Tannery, ITA No. 636/LKW/2013, wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. 3.2 On the other hand, learned Sr. Depa…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mantee Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…ered by the coordinate bench in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-52, Kolkata v. Subhotosh Majumder [2016] 65 taxmann.com 42 (Kolkata - Trib.) where in following the decision of Honourable Delhi high court in CIT v. Angelique International Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 9/219 Taxman 104/38 taxmann.com 425 (Delhi) has held that :- Page 5 of 6 “20. From the above facts and circumstances of the case and also precedents cited above, we are of the view that till amendment in Explanation to sec. 9(2) of the Act, the prevailing legal position was that unless the technical services were rendered in India, the fees for such…