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

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” and no tax has been withheld on this remittance which clearly falls under the purview of royalty as per the Act as well as India

MOL CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ADDL. DIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 3.3 That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the conclusion of the Learned AO in the Draft assessment order that the reassessment

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid disallowance without appreciating that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only in case of payments made to residents. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 10. That on the facts

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

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

1) of the Act. 6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 made under section 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act has been annulled because no incrementing material was found during search, hence, there was fundamental lack of jurisdiction

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

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

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

1) of the Act. 6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 made under section 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act has been annulled because no incrementing material was found during search, hence, there was fundamental lack of jurisdiction

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

vi) and (vii), section 44D, section 115A- clearly shows that the underlying idea is to give special tax treatment to income by way of royalties and fees by way of technical services of foreign companies in two ways : by prescribing a flat rate lower than the general rate of tax on the other income by taxing the gross amount

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)

vi) of the Act software is included in the definition of royalty and therefore, same is chargeable to tax in India. Accordingly, same was brought to tax @25% instead of 10%. Regarding the taxability of software ld DRP discussed this issue in detail and held that software receipts are royalty and are taxed @10%. Regarding the sale of hardware

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the Indo-US DTAA. The Tribunal further held that, the term 'process' being not defined, the extant definition of the same, i.e. as per the domestic law, shall apply in terms of Article 3(2) of the said treaty. To conclude, the Assessing Officer held that in view of the exposition

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

9. 2715/Del/2025 Assessee 2020-21 1 10. 2716/Del/2025 Assessee 2021-22 1 11. 2717/Del/2025 Assessee 2022-23 1 17. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the approval granted u/s 148B of the Act before passing the assessment order was granted in mechanical manner and without application of mind and, therefore, the same is invalid approval

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

vi) The respondent was reverted to Nagaland in 1984 and instruction No. 1739 of the CBDT was issued on 19th December, 1986. The search was conducted only on 19th March, 1987 at which date the respondent was residing within the jurisdiction of ITO, Dimapur. Thus, AO, Delhi should have transferred the records to ITO, Dimapur in terms of instruction

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

vi) The respondent was reverted to Nagaland in 1984 and instruction No. 1739 of the CBDT was issued on 19th December, 1986. The search was conducted only on 19th March, 1987 at which date the respondent was residing within the jurisdiction of ITO, Dimapur. Thus, AO, Delhi should have transferred the records to ITO, Dimapur in terms of instruction

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

vi) of Explanation 2 to Section 148, except with the prior approval of the specified higher authority. The relevant statutory provisions reads as under: “Prior approval for assessment, reassessment or recomputation in certain cases. 148B. No order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

vi. The aforesaid receipt of share capital by the very same shareholder to the tune of Rs.175 crores in financial year 2013-14 (relevant assessment year 2014-15) was accepted and genuine by the Revenue Department after thorough examination as explained hereunder:  During the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2014-15, the assessing officer vide notice dated 26.07.2016 required

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section