BRIGHT VIEW BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIGHT VIEW BUILDCON P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

TDS amount claimed less already declared in ITR Rs. 12,66,547/-; income in respect of other credit entries in bank Rs. 28,93,417/- and income from other sources Rs. 2,87,112/- thus totaling to Rs. 44,47,076/- Further, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO with regard to the above additions and accordingly a show cause

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS certificates. Therefore, learned assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the allowability of the above sum. Assessee did not furnish any reply and therefore the learned assessing officer held that assessee did not earn any income from business during the year except for rental income, therefore, Professional services fees paid by the assessee is not allowable under section

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS certificates. Therefore, learned assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the allowability of the above sum. Assessee did not furnish any reply and therefore the learned assessing officer held that assessee did not earn any income from business during the year except for rental income, therefore, Professional services fees paid by the assessee is not allowable under section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 12(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), business income was assessed at Rs.6,77,68,473/- as against loss of Rs.2,17,28,499/- shown in the return of income and after making brought forward business loss, total income was assessed at Rs.5,25,522/- by making additions viz. depreciation on building, foreign travelling

M/S CHEMPROJECT CONSULTIG PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

TDS was not added back in the computation of income. While drawing our attention to the assessment order, penalty order and the notice issued under section 274

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

section 271(1)(c). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO has failed to appreciate that the issue involved in Appellant’s case is purely a legal issue to be decided on interpretation of the provisions of the Act and merely because Ld. AO adopts a view

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

274/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1 During proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 on 17.1.2014 the assessee filed a letter stating that in view of judgment dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. State

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

274/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1 During proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 on 17.1.2014 the assessee filed a letter stating that in view of judgment dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. State

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

274/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1 During proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 on 17.1.2014 the assessee filed a letter stating that in view of judgment dated 18.7.2013 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. State

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS u/s 194H of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty amounting to 62,00,145/- levied u/s 271C of the Act be deleted. GROUND No. II : The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and / or amend, withdraw all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. During the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS u/s 194H of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty amounting to 62,00,145/- levied u/s 271C of the Act be deleted. GROUND No. II : The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and / or amend, withdraw all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. During the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS u/s 194H of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty amounting to 62,00,145/- levied u/s 271C of the Act be deleted. GROUND No. II : The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and / or amend, withdraw all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. During the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

TDS) thus levied penalty under section 271C of the Act, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 295 ITR 244. He levied penalty as under: S. No. Assessment Year Penalty levied

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal for A

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14 Canon India Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Circle 5(2) 7Th Floor, Tower B Vs. New Delhi Building No.5 Dlf Epitome Dlf Phase Iii Gurgaon

274 in respect of alleged international transaction pertaining to excess AMP expenditure, alleging that the same to be not at arm’s length in terms of the provisions of sections 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal for A

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14 Canon India Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Circle 5(2) 7Th Floor, Tower B Vs. New Delhi Building No.5 Dlf Epitome Dlf Phase Iii Gurgaon

274 in respect of alleged international transaction pertaining to excess AMP expenditure, alleging that the same to be not at arm’s length in terms of the provisions of sections 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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)

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 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)

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 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 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

274 read with 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

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

274 read with 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