ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

ORACLE INDIA P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual property rights and no such rights were acquired by the appellant. The price at which the product was sold did not include the cost of intellectual property right. He noticed that the Assessing Officer in the appellate proceedings for the first

C.I.T vs. DENSO INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

property rights in the form of know-how, patents, copy rights, etc. including licence are eligible ITAs NO. 16 of 2008, 1011/2007,839/2010,840/2010,293/2010,107/2009 Page 12 of 19 for depreciation as per the aforesaid Clauses. She thus submitted that when the know-how is given even in the form of a licence, it falls under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

house property”, “profits and gains of business and professions”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

house property”, “profits and gains of business and professions”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which

JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

house property and other sources amounting to 6 JCB INDIA LTD. Vs. DCIT INR 87.80.34.560 in the computation sheet without appreciating that same were already included in the returned income 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not granting credit of tax deducted at source amounting

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

House Circle 2(2) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACA 0364 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 29.10.2018 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, the decision of Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra) would support the case of the assessee rather than the Revenue. In view of the totality of above facts, we are unable to uphold the view of the TPO that

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)

house dedicated IT team. Thus, reduction in downtime and idle time cost. b) Reduction in investment on standby assets as such standby assets are owned and maintained by BGIL. c) Consistent IT platform and infrastructure maintained by BGIL which provides assesse access to the knowledge pool and huge database of information and technical knowledge. Further, consistent IT platform also ensures