MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains on transfer of shares, is as such not exempt from tax under the provisions of the Act. Section 10(38) of the Act, it is respectfully submitted, only exempts from tax, income earned from limited transaction of transfer of equity shares and equity oriented mutual fund, which are subject to STT. 1.26 In the aforesaid circumstances when

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

v. Assessee has not declared any short-term capital gain in return of income and long-term capital gain of RS. 132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

v. Assessee has not declared any short-term capital gain in return of income and long-term capital gain of RS. 132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

v. Assessee has not declared any short-term capital gain in return of income and long-term capital gain of RS. 132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

v. Assessee has not declared any short-term capital gain in return of income and long-term capital gain of RS. 132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

v. Assessee has not declared any short-term capital gain in return of income and long-term capital gain of RS. 132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

v. Assessee has not declared any short-term capital gain in return of income and long-term capital gain of RS. 132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155/226 Taxman 115/48 taxmann.com 48 (Mad.), the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, when the non-resident agent provides services outside India on payment of commission. 5.2 The contention of the Revenue is that such services are attracted by Explanation (2) to Section 9 (1

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional ground raised by the revenue seeking to assess the amounts received by the Appellant as fees for technical services in terms of Section 9(1)(vii)? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KULBEER SINGH, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amqps5847P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried out in the taxable territories. If no operations of business are carried out in the taxable territories, it follows that the income accruing or arising abroad through or from any business connection in India cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India (See CIT v

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

v) That the learned AO, while computing the deduction u/s 80HHE as per the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in excluding the sum of Rs. 3,98,27,529/- as payment not realized within the prescribed period, ignoring the fact that the extension of the same was granted by the bank of the assessee

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

v) That the learned AO, while computing the deduction u/s 80HHE as per the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in excluding the sum of Rs. 3,98,27,529/- as payment not realized within the prescribed period, ignoring the fact that the extension of the same was granted by the bank of the assessee

AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2015-16] Augustus Capital Pte Ltd Vs. The Dy.C.I.T 24, Raffles Place Circle 1(1) 10-5, Clifford Centre International Taxation Singapore New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv Shri Rishab Malhotra Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit-Dr

v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxman 408/17 taxmann.com 202 (SC) and the Supreme Court held that the transaction of sale and purchase of a share of an overseas company between two non-residents would fall outside the ambit of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Subsequently, Section 9(1) was amended by virtue of Finance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

v) The phrase ―an asset or‖ juxtaposed on the phrase ―capital assets‖ in Explanation 5 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act appears to be an insertion to buttress the concept of capital assets. Since the objective is taxation of the transfer of capital assets alone, the phrase ―an asset or‖ may be omitted. Indeed, it may lead

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

v) The phrase ―an asset or‖ juxtaposed on the phrase ―capital assets‖ in Explanation 5 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act appears to be an insertion to buttress the concept of capital assets. Since the objective is taxation of the transfer of capital assets alone, the phrase ―an asset or‖ may be omitted. Indeed, it may lead