MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

price for the GK 3 project equal to: ( 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for i the quantity shipped is last (18") Shipment. ) ( GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees a to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein ) by the virtue of this addendum. ( This commission is over the above the b commission payable by Welspun to Global

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

1-4-2013: Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVH-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (I) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing officer Page 17 of 95 included by the learned assessing officer in the assessment order, therefore ground number 2 along with all its sub grounds are allowed as directed above. 31. Now coming to ground number 3 of the appeal which is against the disallowance of management services fees

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing officer Page 17 of 95 included by the learned assessing officer in the assessment order, therefore ground number 2 along with all its sub grounds are allowed as directed above. 31. Now coming to ground number 3 of the appeal which is against the disallowance of management services fees

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing officer Page 17 of 95 included by the learned assessing officer in the assessment order, therefore ground number 2 along with all its sub grounds are allowed as directed above. 31. Now coming to ground number 3 of the appeal which is against the disallowance of management services fees

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

201/-. However, the AO further observed that by way of increasing the sale consideration of transfer of assets to any limits, there was not going to be any tax incidence on M/s Deltron Ltd. as any short term capital gain would get absorbed in the current s well as brought forward losses and deprecation. The AO further observed that

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

201/-. However, the AO further observed that by way of increasing the sale consideration of transfer of assets to any limits, there was not going to be any tax incidence on M/s Deltron Ltd. as any short term capital gain would get absorbed in the current s well as brought forward losses and deprecation. The AO further observed that

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

201/-. However, the AO further observed that by way of increasing the sale consideration of transfer of assets to any limits, there was not going to be any tax incidence on M/s Deltron Ltd. as any short term capital gain would get absorbed in the current s well as brought forward losses and deprecation. The AO further observed that

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

201/-. However, the AO further observed that by way of increasing the sale consideration of transfer of assets to any limits, there was not going to be any tax incidence on M/s Deltron Ltd. as any short term capital gain would get absorbed in the current s well as brought forward losses and deprecation. The AO further observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S THAI AIROWAYS INTERNATIONA

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AIR FRANCE

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. AIR FRANCE

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

C.I.T (TDS) vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S UNITED AIRLINES

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

In the result the appeal is allowed in ITA Nos

1), as assessee(s)-in-default and also liable for payment of interest in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. In view of the fact that the Tribunal having coming to the conclusion that Section 194H of the Act was not applicable and hence did not examine any other contention of the assessee-airline, as also, the quantum