PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,10,42,45,751/- as against the income declared of Rs. 1,07,56,68,480/- in the invalid return of income after making certain disallowances aggregating

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68. We are inclined to agree with the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that in the present case, control of the satellite or the transponder always remains with the appellant. We may also observe at this stage that the terms ―lease of transponder capacity‖, ―lessor‖, ―lessee‖ and ―rental‖ used in the agreement would

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)

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 148, and a notice under sub- section (2) of section 143 has been issued by the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

68,02/- under section 10A of the Act as per the certificate of Chartered Accountant in Form No. 56F dated 23rd October, 2001, copy of which is placed at page no. 43 of the assessee’s compilation annexed to the return of income. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company was incorporated

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

68,02/- under section 10A of the Act as per the certificate of Chartered Accountant in Form No. 56F dated 23rd October, 2001, copy of which is placed at page no. 43 of the assessee’s compilation annexed to the return of income. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company was incorporated

PLANETCAST INTERNATIONAL PTE.LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

139 ITR 806 (Guj.)] at Pages 820-822. (b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP)] at pages 156-157. (c) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521] at pages 527 & 538-539." 59. On a final note, India's change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot be a fact

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

section 9(l)(vi) to clarity for removal of doubts that transfer of any right in an intellectual property includes transfer of any right for use of a computer software irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. The amendment comes into operation with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. In view of this clarificatory amendment it is immaterial

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

section 9(l)(vi) to clarity for removal of doubts that transfer of any right in an intellectual property includes transfer of any right for use of a computer software irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. The amendment comes into operation with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. In view of this clarificatory amendment it is immaterial

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is stated to be a social activist. She derives income from house property and interest. For AY 2012-13, she e-filed her return declaring income of Rs. 1,37,420/- on 25.10.2013 belatedly as against due date of 31.07.2012. The return was processed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. It is evident on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the proviso was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

68,58,237 - (55,91,003 + 12,67,234) for the period 1st April 2017 to 30th June 2017 (as GST was introduced w.e.f. 1St July 2017). Refer entry no. 9 (Rs, 55,91,003) and 10 (Rs. 12,67,234) at page no. 139. Refer page nos. 135 to 140 for the copy of the VAT Return. 2. Copy

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

68,311/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act with an adjustment of income to the tune of Rs. 18,13,01,752/-. The only ground being disallowance was on account of claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act by ld AO vide order dated 26.07.2023. Against the order dated 26.07.2023 of ld AO, the assessee