BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 139; and the provisions of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued

M/S. HAMIR REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

1) of section 201 where-- (a) the deductor has deducted but not deposited the tax deducted at source, as this would be a case of defalcation of government dues, (b) the employer has failed to pay the tax wholly or partly, under sub-section (1A) of section 192, as the employee would not have paid tax on such perquisites

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

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

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

L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2)(1)(INT. TAXATION), NEW DELHI

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

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

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

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

REEBOK INDIA COMPANY,GURUGRAM vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment up to 6 years from the end of the assessment year for which the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, section 148 of the Act allows reopening of cases of one more preceding previous year than specified under section 201(3)(ii) of the Act. Due to this, order under section 201(1

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)

reassessment, caused the payer to erroneously refrain from deducting tax under Section 195; it must thus suffer an interest for non-payment of advance tax. The case of the assessees on the other hand is that the position of law in Jacabs Civil Incorporated/Mitsubishi Corporation (supra) must apply, and that the obligation was upon the payer to deduct

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

201 of the Act. 23. For the above reasons, this Court finds that no interest is leviable on the respondent assessees under Section 234B, even though they filed returns declaring NIL income at the stage of reassessment. The payers were obliged to determine whether the assessees were liable to tax under Section 195(1

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made