THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains derived from immovable property is income and therefore Article VI would be attracted.‖ 21. Mr. Chawla contended that when faced with a situation where the meaning of a term is not defined under a tax treaty, Courts would have to necessarily follow the ambulatory approach, as enunciated, as opposed to a static approach. Mr. Chawla submitted that the private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains derived from immovable property is income and therefore Article VI would be attracted.‖ 21. Mr. Chawla contended that when faced with a situation where the meaning of a term is not defined under a tax treaty, Courts would have to necessarily follow the ambulatory approach, as enunciated, as opposed to a static approach. Mr. Chawla submitted that the private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains derived from immovable property is income and therefore Article VI would be attracted.‖ 21. Mr. Chawla contended that when faced with a situation where the meaning of a term is not defined under a tax treaty, Courts would have to necessarily follow the ambulatory approach, as enunciated, as opposed to a static approach. Mr. Chawla submitted that the private

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

gains derived from immovable property is income and therefore Article VI would be attracted.‖ 21. Mr. Chawla contended that when faced with a situation where the meaning of a term is not defined under a tax treaty, Courts would have to necessarily follow the ambulatory approach, as enunciated, as opposed to a static approach. Mr. Chawla submitted that the private

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

12A of the I.T. Act. Similarly, assessment order for A.Y. 2007-2008 was passed under section 143(3) which was appealed before Ld. CIT(A) who has granted benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the I.T. Act to the assessee-society. The order of Ld. CIT(A) have been upheld by the Tribunal

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

12A of the I.T. Act. Similarly, assessment order for A.Y. 2007- 2008 was passed under section 143(3) which was appealed before Ld. CIT(A) who has granted benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the I.T. Act to the assessee-society. The order of Ld. CIT(A) have been upheld by the Tribunal

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed- or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." 7. In Sultan Bros (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[1964] 51 ITR 353 the Supreme Court held that: "It seems to us that the inseparability referred to in sub-section (4) is an inseparability arising

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ERNET INDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

12A, 12AA & 13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income and expenditure is computed on the basis of the entire expenditure including the capital expenditure for purchase of capital asset u/s. 11(1).” 2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the appeal

VIVEK VAZIRCHAND KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 28(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

Capital Gain is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.3 That the intimation order so passed and upheld suffers from perverse findings and is contrary to the facts on record and the same needs to be set aside. 5. That the levy of interest under the Act is disputed and as such unsustainable

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Capital One Ltd vs DCIT 2025-TIOL-803-ITAT-MUM\n[Do 25/02/2025]\n(iii) PCIT vs Britannia Industries Ltd_2025-TIOL-1120-HC-KOL-IT\n09/07/2025.\n7.\nThe Ld. Counsel put forth one more argument that the\nassessment order was passed u/s 144B of the Act by National\nFaceless Appeal Centre, NFAC led by Principal Chief Commissioner of\nIncome

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission