DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund 31-10-1990 (viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund 31-10-1990 (viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund 31-10-1990 (viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

vi) Refund due as a result of appeal Rs. 80,000 (vii) Date of grant of actual refund 31-10-1990 (viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from

M/S DIGITE INC. USA,USA vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

9(l)(vi) of the IT A, 1961 and as per Article 12 the India - USA DTAA; instead of treating the same as consideration for sale of copyrighted software licenses. 2. The DRP / AO ought to have appreciated that the said amount, received from assessee’s Indian customers, is normal Business Income of the appellant arising on account of sale

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

9(l)(vi) of the IT A, 1961 and as per Article 12 the India - USA DTAA; instead of treating the same as consideration for sale of copyrighted software licenses. 2. The DRP / AO ought to have appreciated that the said amount, received from assessee’s Indian customers, is normal Business Income of the appellant arising on account of sale

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

9(l)(vi) of the IT A, 1961 and as per Article 12 the India - USA DTAA; instead of treating the same as consideration for sale of copyrighted software licenses. 2. The DRP / AO ought to have appreciated that the said amount, received from assessee’s Indian customers, is normal Business Income of the appellant arising on account of sale

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

9(l)(vi) of the IT A, 1961 and as per Article 12 the India - USA DTAA; instead of treating the same as consideration for sale of copyrighted software licenses. 2. The DRP / AO ought to have appreciated that the said amount, received from assessee’s Indian customers, is normal Business Income of the appellant arising on account of sale

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

9. At this stage, it would be appropriate and beneficial to notice the nature of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 143 as against sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Act of 1961. The power under sub- section (1) of Section 143 of the Act of 1961 is summary in nature designed to cause adjustment which is apparent

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

9. At this stage, it would be appropriate and beneficial to notice the nature of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 143 as against sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Act of 1961. The power under sub- section (1) of Section 143 of the Act of 1961 is summary in nature designed to cause adjustment which is apparent

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

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

vi) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 158-A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him; or (vii) in a case where an application made before the Income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

vi) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 158-A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him; or (vii) in a case where an application made before the Income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

vi) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 158-A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him; or (vii) in a case where an application made before the Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

9) stipulates that an application for extension under sub- section (5) must be disposed of expeditiously, with the endeavour of doing so within sixty days from the date of filing.” 18. Intention of the Parliament to secure the arbitral proceedings and to ensure that they are taken to their logical conclusion of a binding award is evident from provisions such

GSMA LTD,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL TAXATION 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee company was incorporated in the United State of America (USA) and is a tax resident of USA. The assessee has been appointed by Mobile Industry as a sole Global Decimal Administrator (GDA) and is responsible

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RHC HOLDING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee company was incorporated in the United State of America (USA) and is a tax resident of USA. The assessee has been appointed by Mobile Industry as a sole Global Decimal Administrator (GDA) and is responsible

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

vi) It is also a settled position of law that the bona fide and reasonable delay of filing of return of income is permitted and therefore, is liable to be condoned. In the instant case, as ascertained from the facts, the delay of 52 days from the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) was attributable