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

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9(1)(vi) and which would be deemed to have existed in the statute right from 01 June 1976. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Chawla placed reliance upon the following passages from the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chethiar11: ―19. The contention put forth by the learned Attorney General that capital gains

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

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9(1)(vi) and which would be deemed to have existed in the statute right from 01 June 1976. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Chawla placed reliance upon the following passages from the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chethiar11: ―19. The contention put forth by the learned Attorney General that capital gains

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

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9(1)(vi) and which would be deemed to have existed in the statute right from 01 June 1976. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Chawla placed reliance upon the following passages from the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chethiar11: ―19. The contention put forth by the learned Attorney General that capital gains

M/S. BAIN & COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act includes the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) “in respect of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work”. 18 70. The comma after the word “copyright” does not fit as copyright is obviously spoken of as existing in a literary, artistic or scientific work

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)

9 deal with Basis of Charge. Chapter-III of the Act, deals with income which do not form part of total income and are contained in Sect. 10 to 13-B of the Act. Chapter IV deals with the computation of total income. Firstly, income is categorized under various heads of income. This is laid down in Section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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)

vi) of sub-section (1) ) of section 9: ( "fees for technical services" shall have the same B meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of ) sub-section (1) of section 9: (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which is being reproduced as below:- Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which is being reproduced as below:- Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which is being reproduced as below:- Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which is being reproduced as below:- Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which is being reproduced as below:- Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which is being reproduced as below:- Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains