KANODIA TECHNOPLAST LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is\ndeleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 153A of the Act was issued to the\nassessee on 18-01-2021. In the compliance of the notice the\nassessee, filed the return of income declaring total income\nof Rs.11,25,52,870/-. Statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act\nwas issued on 20-02-2022.After considering the submission\nfiled by the assessee the ld. Assessing officer completed

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

TDS was duly deducted on the sale transaction as\nwell on interest on CCD. It was submitted that ld. DRP erred in observing that\nthe assessee has not made any other investment. A prayer was made by ld.\nCounsel for the assessee to grant benefit to the assessee under DTAA between\nIndia and Singapore by holding that capital gains earned

DARA SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(4), GURGAON

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sh. Dara Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 270, Village & Post Ward-1(4), –Khandsa, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Fhdps0289C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), ITA No. 3697/Del/2023 is a quantum appeal. ITA No.3697 & 3696/Del/2023 AY: 2019-20 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in - i. dismissing appeal against

DARA SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(4), GURGAON

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sh. Dara Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 270, Village & Post Ward-1(4), –Khandsa, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Fhdps0289C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), ITA No. 3697/Del/2023 is a quantum appeal. ITA No.3697 & 3696/Del/2023 AY: 2019-20 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in - i. dismissing appeal against

CLIFFORD CHANCE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE INT. TAX.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

270A of the Act is initiated for "under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income" is illegal and bad in law.” AY 2021-22 “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an income

CLIFFORD CHANCE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

270A of the Act is initiated for "under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income" is illegal and bad in law.” AY 2021-22 “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an income

SERVICENOW NEDERLAND BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar: (A.Y. 2020-21) & : (A.Y. 2021-22)

section 270A of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” 3. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income for the assessment year

SERVICENOW NEDERLAND BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar: (A.Y. 2020-21) & : (A.Y. 2021-22)

section 270A of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” 3. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income for the assessment year

INVESCO UK LIMITED,UK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

section 270A of the Act. 2. The Assessee is a tax resident of the USA and provides Information Technology ("IT") Application services, IT Infrastructure services and IT security ("IT services") to its AEs globally including the ones present in India. The holds Tax Residency Certificate ("TRC") and claims to be eligible to be governed by the provisions of the India

INVESCO HOLDING COMPANY (US) INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

section 270A of the Act. 2. The Assessee is a tax resident of the USA and provides Information Technology ("IT") Application services, IT Infrastructure services and IT security ("IT services") to its AEs globally including the ones present in India. The holds Tax Residency Certificate ("TRC") and claims to be eligible to be governed by the provisions of the India

NCR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(2) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS on interest on income-tax refund which refund is neither issued nor received by the Company. 14. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 5,65,62,675 under Section 2348 of the Act. 13 NCR Global Solutions Ltd., 15. The ld. AO has erred, in law and on facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under Section

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS credit’) of Rs. 1,03,99,424 appearing in Form 26AS. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the bl. AO has erred in proposing to charge interest under sections 234A, and 2341B of the Act. 7. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS credit’) of Rs. 1,03,99,424 appearing in Form 26AS. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the bl. AO has erred in proposing to charge interest under sections 234A, and 2341B of the Act. 7. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS credit’) of Rs. 1,03,99,424 appearing in Form 26AS. 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the bl. AO has erred in proposing to charge interest under sections 234A, and 2341B of the Act. 7. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case

ADVICS COMPANY LTD. ,KARNATAKA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 192 of the Act, hence, cannot be treated as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the tax treaty. Accordingly, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to withhold tax at source under section 195 of the Act. 16. Now coming to the applicability of the case

HIRERIGHT LTD,UK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21 & Asstt. Year: 2019-20

section 270A of the Act.” AY 2020-21 – ITA No. 373/Del/2023 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO, has grossly erred in determining the taxable income of the Appellant for the subject assessment year at INR 8,51,94,915/- as against nil returned income and, accordingly, the assessment order passed

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21 & Asstt. Year: 2019-20

section 270A of the Act.” AY 2020-21 – ITA No. 373/Del/2023 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO, has grossly erred in determining the taxable income of the Appellant for the subject assessment year at INR 8,51,94,915/- as against nil returned income and, accordingly, the assessment order passed

BLACKLINE SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

TDS at the rate 10% under Section 195 on the 15 Blackline Systems Inc. payment of Rs.5,44,28,015/- in lieu of payment for such services as Royalty/FIS. Further, since such technical services are made available to the service recipient for continuous technical support and upgradation, such receipts are liable to be taxed as FIS per India USA DTAA

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

TDS'), Tax Collected at Source ('TCS') and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') credit (iv) Erroneous application of surcharge at 12% vis-à-vis surcharge rate of 10% (as provided under section 115BAA of the Act); and (v) Non-computation of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant has also filed a rectification application dated