TECHNIP UK LTD.,GURGAON vs. DIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

115A of the Act are not applicable since the assessee has entered into a contract with Aker, which is a non- resident company for the purposes of the Act. b) Section 44D of the Act is not applicable since the assessee has entered into the contract on 13.11.2007, i.e., after 31.03.2003 22. He submitted that the assessee’s scope

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP UK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

115A apply only to cases where the income by way of Royalty or FTS is earned by a non-resident by way of royalty or FTS from Government or an Indian entity and where an income is received by a non-resident from another non-resident, the provisions of section 44DA/115A do not apply. 12. Whether on the facts

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 260 is barred by limitation, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground No.5: That on the fact & circumstances of the cases the AO erred in invoking Sec. 68 to treat capital investment made through banking channels as unexplained cash credit without proving that such amount represented income of Appellant chargeable to tax in India, & in complete disregard

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 260 is barred by limitation, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground No.5: That on the fact & circumstances of the cases the AO erred in invoking Sec. 68 to treat capital investment made through banking channels as unexplained cash credit without proving that such amount represented income of Appellant chargeable to tax in India, & in complete disregard

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP FRANCE SAS, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

115A, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, these sections are not applicable, since, the activity performed by the assessee are services in connection with prospecting for, extraction of or production of mineral oils. Further, he submitted, section 44DA refers to FTS as defined under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Drawing our attention

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

Section 14(a)(i) of the Copyright Act which permits the copyright holder to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means. We may also notice Section 52(1)(aa) of the Copyright Act which lists out certain acts which cannot be considered as infringement of copyright

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)

115A of the Act depending on fact whether such receipts are effectively connected with PE or fixed place of profession, or not. However, for assessment year 2004-05 to 2010- 11 the consideration received for fee for technical services rendered in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oil though effectively connected with PE or fixed place

M/S. DOLPHIN DRILLING PTE. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

115A read with Section 44D of the Income-tax Act, 1961." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, as clarified by the CBDT, rendering of services like imparting of training and carrying drilling operations for exploration or exploitation of natural gas would be outside the purview of “fees for technical services” under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Taking note

ONGC AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEWEY & LEBOEUF INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LLC, USA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleongc As Representative Assessee Vs Dcit (International Of Dewey & Leboeuf International Taxation) Company Llc, Usa Circle-Ii Dgm-Head, Oil & Natural Gas Dehradun Corporation Ltd. Room No. 244, Old Secretariat, Tel Bhawan (Respondent) Dehradun Aaaco1598A (Appellant) Ongc As Representative Assessee Vs Dcit (International Of University Of New South Wales, Taxation) Australia Circle-Ii Dgm-Head, Oil & Natural Gas Dehradun Corporation Ltd. Room No. 244, Old Secretariat, Tel Bhawan (Respondent) Dehradun Aaaco1598A (Appellant)

Section 115A of the Act and round off the tax thereon @ 15% as per India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Assessing Officer further applied surcharge @ 2% and education cess @ 3% both for the purpose of grossing up of the actual receipts and for computing the total tax payable on the grossed-up amount. 4. Being aggrieved

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

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A

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

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A

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

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A

ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. HRS SEISMIC SERVICES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Inturi Rama Rao

115A.” 4.1.1. Accordingly the taxable income of the assessee was computed in the following manner as under:- 4. “With the above comments the tax of the assessee is being calculated as under: Gross receipts taxable as FTS @20% $ 68,746.66 = Rs 30,93,600 (@45)” 4.2. In appeal before the CIT(A apart from various other arguments on 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

115A]. 6. Board's Circular No 649 dated 31-3-1993 also clarifies what situation would govern the aspect of taxability of fee for technical services where there is a treaty existent and where there is none. In view of the above, the income of the assesses covered u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2014-15

68 fields of ONGC. The assessee applied for an order under section 195(2) of the Act to the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Dehradun (in short the ‘Assessing Officer’) for allowing it to release payments to the non-resident i.e. DeGolyer and MacNaughton, USA without deduction of tax at source therefrom. However, the Assessing Officer vide order dated

M/S. HALCROW GROUP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

115A of the Act and with regard to the Projects, wherein contract entered after 1.4.2004, the provisions of Section 44DA of the Art will apply. In view of the above, and the fact that the income of the assessee has been wrongly computed, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

section 115A, etc. and considering binding decisions of the Special Bench (in Motorola case), reservations of India regarding OECD commentary. since the said SB decision has been confirmed by the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of DIT V. Nokia Networks -212 Taxman 68