ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings, initiated on the basis of such notices, are legally unsustainable and devoid of jurisdiction. III. Foreign Portfolio Investor Status; Withholding under Section 194LD; Exemption from Return Filing under Section 115A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP UK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

115A read with Section 44D Income-tax Act, 1961. "(emphasis supplied).” Accordingly, such services would be outside the purview of “fees for technical services” under section 9(I)(vii) of the Act.” 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. CIT 376 ITR 306 held as under: “13. The Income Tax Act does

KISAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING FZE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

reassess invoking provisions of section 147. He submitted that notice u/s 148 has not been served upon the assessee. It was further submitted that as per provisions of section 115A

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment. The payers were obliged to determine whether the assessees were liable to tax under Section 195(1), and to what extent, by taking recourse to the mechanism provided in Section 195(2) of the Act. The failure of the payers to do so does not leave the Revenue without remedy; the payer may be regarded an assessee-in- default

MOTOROLA INC,USA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings as confirmed by the Hon'ble DRP u/s 144C(13) read with section 147 of the Act is, therefore, bad in law and requires to be annulled. Fee received by the appellant 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further

MOTOROLA INC,USA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings as confirmed by the Hon'ble DRP u/s 144C(13) read with section 147 of the Act is, therefore, bad in law and requires to be annulled. Fee received by the appellant 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further

SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL CO.,SINGAPORE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

reassessment order, assessing officer accepted the income offered by assessee from start-up and commissioning under section 44 BB, however, made addition in respect of income from repair and overhauling under section 115A

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)

115A of the Act depending on fact whether such receipts are effectively connected with PE or fixed place of profession, or not. However, for assessment year 2004-05 to 2010- 11 the consideration received for fee for technical services rendered in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oil though effectively connected with PE or fixed place

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 115A(1)(b)(A) of the Act and charged Income Tax @ 20%. 7. Being aggrieved the assessee filed the objections before the ld. DRP and challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was stated that the reopening was done only on account of change of opinion

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. HRS SEISMIC SERVICES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Inturi Rama Rao

reassess assessee 's income on grounds that assessee’s income was liable to be taxed as a fee for technical services in view of decision of Uttaranchal High Cowl in case of CIT v. O.N.G.C. [2008] 299 ITR 438 ; and that in view of Explanatory Note to Finance Bill, 2010, combined effect of provisions of sections 44BB, 44DA and 115A

MOL CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ADDL. DIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115A does not enlarge the scope of the term "Royalty as defined in section 9(1)(vi) of the Ac. Page 5 of 52 Accordingly, the order passed by the Learned AO on the basis of DRP's directions is erroneous both in taw and on facts. Therefore, the additions made by the Learned AO are liable to be deleted

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Turner Broadcasting System Asia Vs Dcit, Pacific Inc. Circle 3(1)(2), C/O Pricewaterhosue Coopers (P) Ltd., International Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, Taxation, 1St Floor, 11-A, New Delhi. Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabct6254F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Fca Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Ar Department By: Shri G.K. Dhall, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated. He also drew our attention to paragraph 5.2 of the directions of the Ld. DRP and submitted that the Ld. DRP has directed the AO to verify and 5 Assessment year 2006-07 reach a conclusion as to whether the income was to be taxed simply as royalty under section 115A

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

115A]. 6. Board's Circular No 649 dated 31-3-1993 also clarifies what situation would govern the aspect of taxability of fee for technical services where there is a treaty existent and where there is none. In view of the above, the income of the assesses covered u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. MC DONALDS CORPORATION

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment proceedings were completed on 28.05.2007. This time the income was held to be taxable in terms of section 115A

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. MC DONALDS CORPORATION

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment proceedings were completed on 28.05.2007. This time the income was held to be taxable in terms of section 115A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ADIDAS SOURCING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act. 4. At the outset, we may like to mention that neither anyone appeared on behalf the assessee despite notifying the date of hearing nor an application for adjournment was filed. The appeal being old and non-compliance by the assessee, it was felt that the assessee is not interested in pursuing