COMPAREX INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

TDS') of INR 1,66,68,496/- instead of INR 1,69,80,644- 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred while computing the tax liability for relevant AY by not allowing deduction on account of Section 80G amounting to INR 15,14,475/- already claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income. Interest

SRI LANKA CRICKET,SRI LANKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS purposes. The application under section 154 of the Act was to treat the sum of Rs.28,70,32,330/- as receipt instead of Rs.121,86,67,498/- as royalty. 4.2 During the course of reassessment proceeding and the proceedings before the DRP, the appellant assessee submitted that the payment made by the Lex Sportel was not in the nature

ATAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 70 (1)-DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS credit of Rs.4,000/- duly reflected in Form 26AS not allowed by the AO. 6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. The appellant may be allowed to add/amend/withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or at any time before hearing with due permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal." The assessee

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 3. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 3.1 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the bindingdecision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 3. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 3.1 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the bindingdecision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 3. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 3.1 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the bindingdecision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

VINAY KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT., DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the reason ‘non-filing of return’ as well as based on the information that assessee has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- or more in the 2 saving bank account and interest on the same were not declared. Accordingly, notices were issued. Several opportunities were given to the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VENUS REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the reason ‘non-filing of return’ as well as based on the information that assessee has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- or more in the 2 saving bank account and interest on the same were not declared. Accordingly, notices were issued. Several opportunities were given to the assessee