(Now known as Sony India Limited)

36 of 142 valuation of the contract price and computation of the arm‘s length price, consequent assessments etc. are without jurisdiction and authority of law. 43. This argument on behalf of the assessees would have been weighty and perhaps justified, if the Legislature by the Finance Act, 2012 had not inserted sub-section (2B). The said Sub-Section

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

vii. Trademark or viii. Similar property 3.9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referring to the Explanation-6 inserted by the Legislature to specifically clarify that the expression ‘process’ used in Explanation-2 would include and should be deemed to have always included transmission by satellite (including up- linking, amplification, conversion for down-linking of any signal), cable, optic-fibre

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal can be filed to the CIT(A) and therefore, is not at appealable provision and only u/s 246A(1)(ba) of the Act section 153A of the Act, except an order passed as per DRP directions, has been mentioned

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

36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that the assessee being non-resident company (resident of Canada) is entitled to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Canada (“India-Canada DTAA”) whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide

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

36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that the assessee being non-resident company (resident of Canada) is entitled to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Canada (“India-Canada DTAA”) whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide

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

36,43,550/- made under section 44BB of the Act asserting that the assessee being non-resident company (resident of Canada) is entitled to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act or provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Canada (“India-Canada DTAA”) whichever is more beneficial at the option of the assessee. Vide

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MAYLASIA SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD,AUSTRALIA vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL (BRAZIL) TECHNOLOGIES DA INFORMACAO EIRELI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES GERMANY GMBH,GERMANY vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves