MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

9 1 L D P E P o l y B a g 0 0 0 0 1 0 S a t y a m S t a t i o n e ry ( b l a n k ) K G 2 5 . 0 0 3 0 5 0 . 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1

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

section (9)(1)(vi) cannot be imported into beneficial provisions of India-USA tax treaty. In this regard, the Appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68

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

section 9(1). Clause (i) deals with the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, rtc. Thus, what this clause envisages is the transfer of "rights in respect of property" and not transfer of "right : the property". The two transfers are distinct and have different legal effects

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)

1) of the Act proceeded to treat the aforesaid sum of Rs.134.99 crores as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. While making the said addition, the NFAC vaguely alleged that the assessee has not filed the requisite details/ documentary evidence to establish the nature and source of credit in the form of share capital

PGS EXPLORATION (NORWAY) vs. ADDITIOANAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

68,74,62,560/-. 2.4 Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.07.2011, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the nature of income of the assessee would not fall within the definition of ‘fees for technical services’ by virtue of Explanation (2) to Section 9(1

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

9. That the AO in compliance to the directions of the CIT(A) has passed an order under section 250 of the Act allowing assessee deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 5,08,91,310/-. That the deduction allowed by the AO under Section 80HHE is not in accordance with the provisions

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

9. That the AO in compliance to the directions of the CIT(A) has passed an order under section 250 of the Act allowing assessee deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 5,08,91,310/-. That the deduction allowed by the AO under Section 80HHE is not in accordance with the provisions

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC charges to various operators at Rs. 10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC charges to various operators at Rs. 10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC charges to various operators at Rs. 10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC charges to various operators at Rs. 10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC charges to various operators at Rs. 10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

1)(vii) read with Explanation-2 of the Act. In case before us, the assessee has paid roaming charges i.e. IUC charges to various operators at Rs. 10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore

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

section 44DA would not be applicable. Elaborating further, he submitted, as per Article 5(3) of India – France DTAA, for constituting an installation PE, a period of six 12 AY: 2011-12 months is required. However, in assessee’s case, the installation and related services did not exceed the period of five months. He submitted, the allegation

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 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

1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act ("Reassessment Proceedings) having been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts and without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, illegal. bad in law and liable

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

1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act ("Reassessment Proceedings) having been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts and without there being reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, illegal. bad in law and liable

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