SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28; (vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28; (vd) the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable under clause (iv) of section 28; (ve) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (v) of section 28; (vi) any capital gains chargeable under

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidy. Director Of Income Tax, Bg Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun Bg House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5) . The DRP procedure can only be initiated by an assessee objecting to the draft assessment order. This would enable correction in the proposed order (draft assessment order) before a final assessment order is passed. Therefore, we are of the view that in the present facts this issue could be agitated before and rectified

MOSER BAER INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS 1), & ANR.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 195 of the Act. The respondents have also contended that Paragraph 3(b) of Article 11 would be inapplicable since the payment of interest was essentially in the nature of consideration of an insurance facility for exports which had been extended. It is this view which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. For the purposes of examining the issues

MOSER BAER INDIA LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 75(4), & ANR.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 195 of the Act. The respondents have also contended that Paragraph 3(b) of Article 11 would be inapplicable since the payment of interest was essentially in the nature of consideration of an insurance facility for exports which had been extended. It is this view which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. For the purposes of examining the issues

MOSER BAER INDIA LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 75(4), & ANR.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 195 of the Act. The respondents have also contended that Paragraph 3(b) of Article 11 would be inapplicable since the payment of interest was essentially in the nature of consideration of an insurance facility for exports which had been extended. It is this view which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. For the purposes of examining the issues