DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under: “(15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under: “(15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under: “(15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said provision reads as under: “(15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GAINWAY HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Gainway Holdings Ltd. Vs Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aafcg6056L Appellant Respondent

6 of the Revenue. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a foreign company and the 10 ITA No. 4007 & C. O. No. 390/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. Gainway Holdings Ltd. Assessee herein is an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. As per the provisions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEWBURY HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). CO Nos. 349 & 350/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. Newbury Holding Ltd. 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. EICR (CYPRUS) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). CO Nos. 473 & 474/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. EICR (Cyprus) Ltd. 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEWBURY HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). CO Nos. 349 & 350/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. Newbury Holding Ltd. 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. FOCUSOIL INC., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs Focusoil Inc. Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aaccf3908K Appellant Respondent

6 of the Revenue. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a foreign company and the Assessee herein is an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GYNIA HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

6 of the Revenue. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a foreign company and the Assessee herein is an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GYNIA HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

6 of the Revenue. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a foreign company and the Assessee herein is an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GYNIA HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

6 of the Revenue. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a foreign company and the Assessee herein is an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. BENNETT WILLIAMSON ENGINEERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

6 of the Revenue. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee is a foreign company and the Assessee herein is an ‘eligible assessee’ in terms of section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required

TRAVELPORT LP,GEORGIA USA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Shri Rishab Malhotra, AR Department By : Shri Jitender Kumar – CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 21.06.2019 framed u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income

BECHTEL LTD,LONDON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

c) of Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. as the services consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in making factually incorrect statements in the order passed by it. 9. That on the facts

BECHTEL LIMITED,LONDON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

c) of Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. as the services consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in making factually incorrect statements in the order passed by it. 9. That on the facts

HAKAM FLUID POWER PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

c) of Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. as the services consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in making factually incorrect statements in the order passed by it. 9. That on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. EICR (CYPRUS) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

6(3)(ii) of the Act for the purpose of tax liability and further challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment orders on the ground that the assessment orders have been passed without passing the draft assessment orders. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in holding that