KREUZ CHALLENGER PTE LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

TDS amounting to INR 3 1,33,23,843 as claimed in the return of income filed for the relevant AY. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in erroneously levying Interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case

NEW SKIES SATELLITES B. V ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(2) INT. TAXATION , DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

270A of the Act. 4 ITA No.436/Del./2022 The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. As could

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

9. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under

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

9. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under

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

9. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under

BTICINO S.P.A,ITALY vs. ACIT INTL. TAXATION-1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A of the Act against the Appellant. 5. Ground in relating to Interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act. The Learned AO/ DRP has erred in levying interest under section 234A and 2348 The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 3 Bticino S.P.A. 3. Bticino SPA is a company incorporated in Italy

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

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

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act and also whether the amount received for use of software would be royalty in terms thereof f or the reason that the Assessee is covered by the DTAA, the provisions of which are more beneficial. 95. The amount received by the Assessee under the licence agreement for allowing the use of the software

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 9 (1)(vi) of the Act and also whether the amount received for use of software would be royalty in terms thereof f or the reason that the Assessee is covered by the DTAA, the provisions of which are more beneficial. 95. The amount received by the Assessee under the licence agreement for allowing the use of the software

CRICKET AUSTRALIA,AUSTRALIA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Cricket Australia, Vs Acit (International No.60, Jolimant Street, Jolimont Taxation), Victoria, Australia-3002. Circle-1(2)(1), Pan-Aaecc5341D Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. & Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

9(1Xvi) of the Act as well as under Article 12 of India-Australia Tax Treaty. 3. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, pursuant to the directions of the Ld. DRP erred in holding that a unilateral amendment of the term 'process' under the Act would get imported into the definition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

9,99,30,694.\n6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under\nSection 270A of the Act.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add to, withdraw or modify all or\nany of the grounds of appeal herein and to submit such\nstatements, documents and papers

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)

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 274 read with 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

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)

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 274 read with 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

ERNST AND YOUNG U.S. LLP,UNITED STATES vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

270A of the Act for alleged under- reporting of income. All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and notwithstanding each other.” 3. Ernst and Young U.S. LLP is a limited liability partnership (LLP0, wherein various individual partners have partnership share in the partnership. Further, the assessee is tax resident of United States of America

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

GE PRECISION HEALTHCARE LLC,USA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A of the Act.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 GE Precision Healthcare LLC 4. GE Precision Healthcare LLC, is a company incorporated in the state of Delaware, USA. It carries on healthcare business for the General Electric group, and is a global medical device provider that designs, develops, manufactures

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