GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Corporate Office, Plot No. 57, Special Range -04 Sector 44, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

68. In light of the above, let us now consider the India Germany DTAA, which is under consideration in the present additional ground of appeal. “Notification No. G. S. R. 836(E), dated 29th November, 1996 Whereas the annexed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. vs. ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

44A of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.01.2024 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 216/2020 and Other Connected Matters Page 20 of 61 REASONS & CONCLUSION Re: Question No. (iv) 33. One of the principal contentions advanced by the Assessee is that even if it is assumed that the Assessee has a PE in India, there

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

44A of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.01.2024 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 216/2020 and Other Connected Matters Page 20 of 61 REASONS & CONCLUSION Re: Question No. (iv) 33. One of the principal contentions advanced by the Assessee is that even if it is assumed that the Assessee has a PE in India, there

HYATT INTERNATIONAL-SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

44A of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.01.2024 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 216/2020 and Other Connected Matters Page 20 of 61 REASONS & CONCLUSION Re: Question No. (iv) 33. One of the principal contentions advanced by the Assessee is that even if it is assumed that the Assessee has a PE in India, there

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

44A of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.01.2024 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 216/2020 and Other Connected Matters Page 20 of 61 REASONS & CONCLUSION Re: Question No. (iv) 33. One of the principal contentions advanced by the Assessee is that even if it is assumed that the Assessee has a PE in India, there

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

44A of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.01.2024 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 216/2020 and Other Connected Matters Page 20 of 61 REASONS & CONCLUSION Re: Question No. (iv) 33. One of the principal contentions advanced by the Assessee is that even if it is assumed that the Assessee has a PE in India, there

HYATT INTERNATIONAL-SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

44A of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:03.01.2024 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 216/2020 and Other Connected Matters Page 20 of 61 REASONS & CONCLUSION Re: Question No. (iv) 33. One of the principal contentions advanced by the Assessee is that even if it is assumed that the Assessee has a PE in India, there

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed : "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash payments which find entries

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed : "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash payments which find entries

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed: "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash (U payments which find

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. TCI FOUNDATION 10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed: "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash (U payments which find

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression ‘‘ expenditure incurred ‘‘ in s. 44A of the Act, observed : . . . ‘‘depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred.’‘ There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash payments . which find entries

VENUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2009-10 Venus Financial Services Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, (Now Merged With Avantha Realty Ltd.) Circle 17(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv3258L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 .07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 :09.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1) That The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts.

68 of the paper book which are copies of shares certificate. 8. The Learned AR submitted further that long term capital gain or loss is to be computed in the manner laid down in section 48 of the Act as in the section the expression used is “full value of consideration received or accrued”, meaning thereby that there

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

68,38,614/- (separately dealt in grounds of appeal at Sl.no.2 to 5 below) made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

68,38,614/- (separately dealt in grounds of appeal at Sl.no.2 to 5 below) made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

68,38,614/- (separately dealt in grounds of appeal at Sl.no.2 to 5 below) made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

68,38,614/- (separately dealt in grounds of appeal at Sl.no.2 to 5 below) made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

68,38,614/- (separately dealt in grounds of appeal at Sl.no.2 to 5 below) made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

68,38,614/- (separately dealt in grounds of appeal at Sl.no.2 to 5 below) made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year