MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case under

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

DIT-I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT USA, INC

The appeals are allowed

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services INC. for the very same assessment years; in addition, for the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also 2013:DHC:5710-DB ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 4 of 33 issued

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

reassessment shall be passed\nby an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner\nin respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of\nsub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year\nreferred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B,\nexcept with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”\n8. As argued

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

195 even though the consideration so received is chargeable to tax both under the definition of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under the provisions of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). M/s. Snapdeal Private Limited had made foreign remittances towards “Hosting and Bandwidth Charges

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

195 even though the consideration so received is chargeable to tax both under the definition of royalty under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and under the provisions of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-USA DTAA”). M/s. Snapdeal Private Limited had made foreign remittances towards “Hosting and Bandwidth Charges

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09 vs. TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD

reassessment.” 5. Apparently, the Assessee did raise an objection to the order of the AO reopening the assessment. In the order dated 28th January 2011 allowing the Assessee‟s appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [„CIT (A)‟] noted that the Assessee had indeed filed objections to the reopening of the assessment by its letter dated 9th August

DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision

VANSHIKA MOTORS (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,GR. NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Lg Electronics India Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Surajpur Industrial Area, Noida Greater Noida (Up) Pan :Aaacl1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings of SEC for the same assessment year. On the date on which notices were issued to the petitioner under Sections 148 and 201(1)/(1A), there was an uncontested finding by the revenue authorities (i.e., the DRP) in the case of SEC that SEC cannot be taxed in respect of the sales made in India through the petitioner