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

4) of section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and-- Maharashtra Feeds P Ltd. (i) in a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing Officer shall

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

reassessment year 1998-99, where it has declined the benefit to the assessee cannot be found fault with. But there is change in the law for the assessment year 2001-02. Section 10(B)(1) and (4) reads as under- "Section 108: Special provisions in respect off newly established hundred per cent export oriented undertakings (1) Subject to the provisions

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

4 November 2019, explaining that (a) rectification under Section 154 of the Act is bad in law as there is no error apparent from record and (b) interest under Section 234B of the Act is not leviable since the entire income of the Assessee was deductible at source under Section 195 of the Act. In this regard, the assessee relied

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

4. The Revenue argues that the ITAT's reliance on Jacab (supra) in the impugned order was misplaced as the proposition that interest, under Section 234B, is not chargeable cannot be unqualified, because regard must be had to the role of the assessee/payee in the non-deduction or short-deduction of tax at source. Mr. Balbir Singh for the Revenue

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

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C o The AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C o The AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty

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

4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C o The AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty

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

4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C o The AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty

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 and withdrawal of interest under section 21 244A in the demand notice and, therefore, interest so levied deserves to be deleted. 30. Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that against the issue of notice u/s 148 only writ lies before the Hon'ble High Court/Hon

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

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 issued to that company. Apparently, these notices

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 issued to that company. Apparently, these notices

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 issued to that company. Apparently, these notices

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 issued to that company. Apparently, these notices

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

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 issued to that company. Apparently, these notices

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 issued to that company. Apparently, these notices

DIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALCATEL LUCENT WORLD SERVICES INC

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 2013:DHC:7845-DB issued to that

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

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 2013:DHC:7845-DB issued to that

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

reassessment notices under Section 148 were also issued to the other assessee concerned in the present appeals, i.e. Alcatel Lucent World Services ING, for the very same assessmerit years; in addition, for ' the assessment year 2008-09, a notice under Section 142 (1) was also -,. ITA Nos.327-330 & 336-340/2012 Page 3 of33 2013:DHC:7845-DB issued to that