COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

TDS and self assessment advance tax challans had not been attached etc. The respondent has not stated or averred that he had filed the requisite papers as mentioned in the said notice dated 6th July, 1988. However, there is no order of the income tax authority at Dimapur declaring the return to be void or invalid. 14. The assessment orders

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

vi) of the Income Tax Act, the persons liable to deduct TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act ought to have deducted tax at source on the footing that explanation 4 existed on the statute book with effect from 1976. We have, therefore, to examine as to whether persons liable to deduct TDS under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

24. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (supra), we hold that where the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income-tax Act and the definition of 'royalty' having not been undergone any amendment in DTAA, the assessee was not liable to withhold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

24. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (supra), we hold that where the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income-tax Act and the definition of 'royalty' having not been undergone any amendment in DTAA, the assessee was not liable to withhold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

24. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (supra), we hold that where the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income-tax Act and the definition of 'royalty' having not been undergone any amendment in DTAA, the assessee was not liable to withhold

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

24. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV (supra), we hold that where the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of Income-tax Act and the definition of 'royalty' having not been undergone any amendment in DTAA, the assessee was not liable to withhold

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order no. DlT(E)/2007-08/N- 845/136 dated 07.03.2008. As per the assessee, it is a society registered on 01st December 2004 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the main object promote, support and strengthen education, research, and training of Information Technology and its application in all fields of activity

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

FOX NETWORKS GROUP SINGAPRE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

TDS is required to be deducted u/s. 194J of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that there is a distinction between the copyright and the broadcasting right and the broadcasting of live coverage does not have a copyright. Apart from that, reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in the case

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit directly in the hands of the employee as a payment by the employer would be excluded from Section 10 (10CC). This may be in the form of any benefit to pay rent, or discharge any manner of obligation

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit directly in the hands of the employee as a payment by the employer would be excluded from Section 10 (10CC). This may be in the form of any benefit to pay rent, or discharge any manner of obligation

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

24. Parliament was aware of the pre-existing law, and therefore, stepped in to clarify that only a monetary benefit directly in the hands of the employee as a payment by the employer would be excluded from Section 10 (10CC). This may be in the form of any benefit to pay rent, or discharge any manner of obligation

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

2 to Sec. 9(1) and not liable to TDS. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly held that the payment made by the appellant is not in the nature of FTS and is therefore not chargeable to tax in India. Hence the appellant is not liable to deduct tax on such payment. There is no need to interfere with the findings

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

2 to Sec. 9(1) and not liable to TDS. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly held that the payment made by the appellant is not in the nature of FTS and is therefore not chargeable to tax in India. Hence the appellant is not liable to deduct tax on such payment. There is no need to interfere with the findings

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

2 to Sec. 9(1) and not liable to TDS. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly held that the payment made by the appellant is not in the nature of FTS and is therefore not chargeable to tax in India. Hence the appellant is not liable to deduct tax on such payment. There is no need to interfere with the findings

DLF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3253/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 3254/Del/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)

2 to Sec. 9(1) and not liable to TDS. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly held that the payment made by the appellant is not in the nature of FTS and is therefore not chargeable to tax in India. Hence the appellant is not liable to deduct tax on such payment. There is no need to interfere with the findings

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

vi) by assessing officer is concerned, we are of the opinion that in view of explanation (iv-a), the income is to be assessed u/s 44BB.” 11. Therefore we hold that services rendered by the assessee falls within the ambit of provision of section 44BB of the act and not as Royalty or fees for technical services. In view