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 under section 147 or section 153A of the Income-tax Act. 48.2 Interest is charged under section 234B on the principle

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. FORMULA ONE MARKETING II LIMITED, UNITED KINGDOM

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Section 234B of the Act and deals with the scope of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The question

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

The appeals are allowed

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was not liable to tax in India and pressed its claim only to the extent of its liability to pay interest under Section 234B

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

234B of the Act. 2. Briefly, the facts are that General Electric group was manufacturing equipment relating to oil and gas, energy, transportation and aviation, for supply to customers in India. After a survey under Section 133A at the premises of General Electric International Operations Company Inc. (“GEIOC”), the liaison office, reassessment

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

234B of the Act can be levied only when the assessee is granted refund under section 143( I) of the Act and the same is payable back to the Revenue on completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The said section 234D was held not applicable where reassessment

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT 1 , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT USA, INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B

DIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT USA, INC

reassessments; but before the CIT (Appeals) it gave up the claim that it was notliable totaxinIndia and pressed its claim only to the extent ofits liability to pay intkest under Section 234B