DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

M/S SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUMITOMO CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the returned loss for both the AY 2000- 01 and AY 2001-02 holding that the receipts from O&M contract is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and is to be taxed on gross basis without allowing any deduction for expenditure under section 44D

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

44D has been made inoperative in respect of agreements after the 31st Day of March 2003 and with this two streams for taxation of persons engaged in providing services of technical nature is evident, one for those having a PE in India (Section 44DA) and the other who do not have a PE [Section 9 (1) (vii) read with section

M/S. DOLPHIN DRILLING PTE. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing the depreciation were properly explained and the ld. Authorities below did not consider the explanation of the assessee in right perspective. The next contention of the assessee has been that this issue is squared covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for the assessment years

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 40(a)(i), inserted vide Finance Act, 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.89, payment in respect of royalty, fees technical services or other sums chargeable under the Income Tax Act would not get the benefit of deduction if the assessee fails to deduct TAS in respect of payments outside India which are chargeable under the IT. Act. This provision ensures effective compliance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

44D or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person

M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

44D or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:— (a) the amount paid or payable (whether in or out of India) to the assessee or to any person

M/S. HALCROW GROUP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

section 44D are not applicable. The addition / disallowances have ITA Nos. 5163 & 5164/Del/2010 3 & ITA No. 5554/Del/2012 Halcrow Group Ltd. been

ACIT, DEHRADUN vs. WESTERM GECO INTERNATIONAL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena Pillaii.T.A .No.5602/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

44D and 44DA got excluded. 2.6. The AO, however, after considering the provisions of section 44BB and also taking into consideration the amendments brought in w.e.f. 1.4.2011 by Finance Act 2010, concluded that assessee’s receipts were effectively connected with the project office of the assessee in India and, therefore, taxable u/s 44DA of the I.T. Act as these

AL MANSOORI SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 5868/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 A1 Mansoori Specialized Vs Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax, Engineering Llc, C/O Nangia & International Taxation, Subhash Company Chartered Accountants, Road, Dehradun-248001 Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Uttarakhand New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca9529M Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Nangia, Anil Arora & Suraj Nangia, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

disallowed the claim of the assessee. However, the said decision was reversed and claim of the assessee was allowed in ITA No. 5286/Del/2010 vide order dated 11.07.2014 by the ITAT and the appeal against the said order by the department in ITA No. 75/2014 was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2015 by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court