DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

9(i)(vi) to include consideration for transfer of 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 33 of 174 either one or more intellectual property rights mentioned therein and as such, there was no scope for an argument that computer software was not fully covered within the meaning of royalty. He further contended that computer software was one of the intellectual

SABRE DECISION TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

1). Again, the same principle of particular excluding the general has to be applied. Therefore as the payments received by the assessee are in the nature of royalty, these and are mandatorily required to be assessed under the clause (vi) of section 9 relating to royalty. 5. The taxability of the income of the assessee is now discussed

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI vs. SABRE DECISION TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LLC, USA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

1). Again, the same principle of particular excluding the general has to be applied. Therefore as the payments received by the assessee are in the nature of royalty, these and are mandatorily required to be assessed under the clause (vi) of section 9 relating to royalty. 5. The taxability of the income of the assessee is now discussed

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

9, which merely confirm it.” 2.18 In view of the above discussion, the conclusions drawn by the AO as detailed in Para 2.5 above are upheld. The objections in Grounds 1 and 4 are dismissed. 3. The objections of the assessee are decided as above. The Assessing Officer is directed to incorporate the findings of the DRP in respect

UMW SHER (L) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESISING OFFICER , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 9(1)(vi) defines the term ‘royalty’. The term ‘royalty’ in Explanation (2) initially was in a restricted form. However, the scope of royalty under explanation (2) was enlarged with introduction of clause (iva) w.e.f. 01.04.2002, which reads as under: “Income deemed to accrue or arise in India. 9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue

UMW SHER (L) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESISING OFFICER , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 9(1)(vi) defines the term ‘royalty’. The term ‘royalty’ in Explanation (2) initially was in a restricted form. However, the scope of royalty under explanation (2) was enlarged with introduction of clause (iva) w.e.f. 01.04.2002, which reads as under: “Income deemed to accrue or arise in India. 9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

VI. Significant presence of Essar Group in Mauritius: 51. The lower authorities have denied treaty benefits to the Assessee on the basis that the investment has been made through Mauritius with a singular motive of claiming the benefits of not being liable to pay tax in India on the capital gains and having regard to the provisions, as they then

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the settlement compensation of Rs.33,12,18,930/- received by the appellant from Cinepolis Group on account of relinquishment of right to sue and settlement of disputes is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.” 5.1 The appellant/assessee filed application dated 25.06.2024 for admission of additional evidence

PACIFIC CREST PTE LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

gains. It is evident, learned DRP brought to tax the receipts under section 115A of the Act primarily for two reasons; firstly, the receipts are in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2(iva) to section 9(1)(vi) and, secondly, the assessee has no PE in India. 11. Insofar as the first reasoning of learned

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

vi)] [or clause (via)] [or clause (viaa)] [or caluse (vica)] or [clause (vicb)] or clause (xiiib) of section 47]; [ (iv) Such assessee being a Hindu undivided family, by the mode referred to in sub-section (2) of section 64 at any time after the 31st day of December, 1969,] the cost of the acquisition of the assets shall be deemed

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

9(1) of the Act, capital gain through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India is deemed to accrue and arise in India. He submitted, all the Employment Agreements pursuant to which assessee’s right to acquire or right to obtain shares arose were entered outside India and were subject

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

vi) or any hospital or other\nmedical institution referred to in sub-clause (via), of clause (23C) of\nsection 10, or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, has\ncommitted any specified violation as defined in Explanation 2 to the\nfifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or the Explanation to\nsub-section (4) of section 12AB

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

VI FDI Three Pte.Ltd.W.P.(C) 2562/2022 &\nCM APPL. 7332/2022 and the Bombay High Court in the case of Bid\nServices Division (Mauritius) Ltd. (WP No. 713 of 2021) has reiterated\nthat the tax authorities cannot go behind the TRC issued by the other tax\njurisdiction as the same is sufficient evidence to claim treaty eligibility,\nresidential status and legal

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) SNC ETT COMPAGNIE , MAURITIUS

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Ddit, Snc Et Compagnie, Circle-1(2), 605, St. James Court, International Taxation, St. Denies Street Port Louis, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Adit/Dcit/Acit, Snc Et Compagnie, Range - 1, 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, International Taxation, 24 Cyber City, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital gains")for' 13. In our opinion, these provisions would in no manner change the position. Only if the payment in the present case by way of a royalty as explained in explanation (2) below sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, the question of applicability of clause (vi

ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Ddit, Snc Et Compagnie, Circle-1(2), 605, St. James Court, International Taxation, St. Denies Street Port Louis, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Adit/Dcit/Acit, Snc Et Compagnie, Range - 1, 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, International Taxation, 24 Cyber City, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital gains")for' 13. In our opinion, these provisions would in no manner change the position. Only if the payment in the present case by way of a royalty as explained in explanation (2) below sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, the question of applicability of clause (vi