DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

capital gains in the other country. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 71 of 174 48. The Supreme Court further referred to the commentary of Klaus Vogel that Double Taxation Convention establishes an independent mechanism to avoid double taxation through restriction of tax claims in areas where overlapping tax claims are expected, or at least theoretically possible. In other words

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

capital gains arising from the alienation of\nunderlying asset of the investment, i.e, shares/equity.\n\nGiven under is the Article 13 of the India-Mauritius DTAA, which clearly\ninundates that gains arising from alienation of shares acquired on or after\n01.04.2017 are taxable in source only.\n\nARTICLE 13\nCAPITAL GAINS\n\n1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

capital gains that have arisen to it on the sale\nof shares of VEL are not liable to tax in India.\n76. At the time of hearing, ld. ASG, Shri N. Venkatraman Sr. Advocate\nsubmitted that the issue involved in both the appeals, viz., Essar\nCommunications Limited and Essar Com Limited are inter-connected and\nintertwine and the facts have

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

CAPITAL GAINS 1. Gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of immovable property referred to in paragraph (2) of Article 6 and situated in the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

permanent basis and no adhoc. Further it has submitted that there is no bar for the same assessee to do business in shares and hold the same shares as investment. 5.3 On careful consideration of the fact, it is noted that the appellant company which is an NBFC, has various main objectives as mentioned in the Memorandum and Article

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain taxation as provided in the Act. Please find enclosed the notes to computation (also furnished earlier) as Annexure 3 for detailed description in relation to transactions undertaken during the year under consideration. Further, the Company is a non-resident as per the provisions of the Act and does not create a permanent establishment

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

MIH INDIA (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Capital gains - 1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property, as defined in paragraph (2) of article 6, may 12 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

gain made by the assessee. The claim has not been entertained by the Ld. CIT(A) for want of evidence of payment. The Ld. AR has also not addressed us in this regard. As it is, now the claim has become only academic in nature. Accordingly, we decide all the additional grounds taken by the assessee before the Tribunal

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

permanent establishment which an enterprise of a\nContracting State has in the other Contracting State or of movable property\npertaining to a fixed base available to a resident of a Contracting State in\nthe other Contracting State for the purpose of performing independent\npersonal services, including such gains from the alienation of such a\npermanent establishment (alone or together with

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital gain Rs.1,84,23,729/- Less: Exemption u/s 54F (-) Rs.1,84,23,729/- Analysis of Claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act: 10.4 The assessee in support of his claim u/s 54F has furnished a copy of registered deed dated 11.7.2013 purchased by assessee jointly in the name of Smt. Meenu Gupta, Smt. Nirmal Garg and Shri Himanshu

SHENHZHEN SDG INFORMATION CO. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Permanent Establishment (PE) threshold under Article 7 of the relevant DTAA is required. 8.3. Taxable presence: 8.3.1 Business connection threshold: 8.3.1.1 Non-resident's business income is liable to be taxed in India if it has a "Business connection" in India. Income-tax Act does not define the word "business connection". However, the Apex court had the occasion to define

TIGER GLOBAL EIGHT HOLDINGS,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Vs Dcit, C/O 202 Rajnigandha International Taxation, Apartment, Circle 3(1)(1), Prof. V.S. Agashe Path, New Delhi. Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028, Maharashtra. Pan: Aafct0276M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate; Shri Manish Kant, Advocate; & Ms Amrita Shenoy & Hetal Jakharia, Cas Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

permanent establishment in China, may not be subject to capital gains tax in China on the sale of securities provided

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

permanent establishment or fixed place of profession, as the case may be, shall be computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” (emphasis supplied) 44. He submitted that the action of the assessing officer in invoking the provisions of section 44DA of the Act to tax royalty income under

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI vs. COBRA INSTALACIONES Y SERVICIOS S.A., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Permanent Establishment (PE) of a Spanish company M/s Cobra Instalaciones-Y-Servicios SA which has been incorporated as per the laws of Spain. The foreign company Cobra Instalaciones-Y-S.A. (Spain) is engaged in providing services and consultancy in projects, Engineering and Electrical contractors and suppliers. The PE of the foreign company is in existence in India since

GENPACT CONSULTING (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS 'HEADSTRONG CONSULTING PTE. LTD.'),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

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

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

capital gains tax liability and why the income is exempt. 7. The first notice issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings is dated 16.08.2017 wherein the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to submit copies of acknowledgement of filing return of income alongwith Income tax return form and notes to return and also Form