PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH KUMAR MATHUR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TDS on payments made to sister concern on account of purported reimbursement with I.T.A. No.1016/Del/2019 4 reference to Section 194C and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was set aside and remanded by the Hon’ble High Court in terms of above directions. 7. The assessment order was again framed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 260A

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. XIOCOM ( NZ) LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the appellant/the Revenue and in

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) is to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 17.02.2022, whereby the ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by stating in paragraph 11 onwards as under: Signed By:AWANISH CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:13.08.2025 17:31:07 Signature Not Verified ITA 299/2025 Page

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”), the Revenue questions the common order of the ITAT dated 16.7.2013 in ITA No.6034/Del-2010 and connected appeals, by which the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)”) deleting the interest levied under Section 234B, was confirmed. The Revenue argues that the substantial question

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TALBROS (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

260A of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short) in the case of Naresh Kumar and M/s Talbros (P) Ltd. relate to a common assessment year 2008-09, and ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 2 of 27 raise a common question and, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment at the stage of admission. 2. The contention of the Revenue

Commissioner of Income Tax XIII

260A of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short) in the case of Naresh Kumar and M/s Talbros (P) Ltd. relate to a common assessment year 2008-09, and 2013:DHC:4434-DB ITA 24 & 218/2013 Page 2 of 27 raise a common question and, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment at the stage of admission

RAJNISH J. KARKI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-32(5), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajnish J. Karki Ito L-1/13, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs Ward-32(5) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Ajepk8684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS on 27th November, 2015. 3. In terms of the information obtained by the Assessee under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), it appeared that in the quantum matter the ITAT's order dated 25th March, 2013 in ITA Nos. 2859/Del/2013 and 2042/Del/2013 had been served on the CIT (Judicial), CR building, New Delhi on 9th April

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. XIOCOM ( NZ) LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) is to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dated 12.02.2022, whereby the ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue by stating in paragraph 11 onwards as under: “11. We find that impugned quarrel has now been This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity

NOKIA NETWORKS OY vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NOKIA NETWORKS OY

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

ICEC INDIA P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

DTE OF INCOME TAX vs. NOKIA NETWORK OY

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. UOP LIC, NEW DELHI

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. C.I.T ALCATEL

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. UOP LIC, NEW DELHI

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

NOKIA NETWORKS OY vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS provisions applied to the sums in question and tax due had not been deducted at source? 5. The ITAT decided appeals of all the assessees by a common judgment dated 22.6.2005. In so far as appeals relating to Nokia are concerned, findings of the Special Bench are as under: (1) Liaison Office neither constituted a business connection under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) impugns the order dated 17th March, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (the Tribunal) in the ITA No.3214(Del)2009 for the assessment year 2006-2007. The question relates to deduction of Rs.83,60,017/- claimed by the assessee under Section 80IC of the Act. 2. The Tribunal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -TDS-01 vs. DIAMOND TREE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS-01 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Ms.Aditi Sabharwal, Advocate. versus DIAMOND TREE .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in these appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A