Delhi High Court - Orders
Cadence Design Systems (India) Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 February, 2019
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Prateek Jalan
$~27, 28, 29, 32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 592/2018
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS
(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
+ ITA 838/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,
NEW DELHI ..... Appellant
versus
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INDIA PVT. LTD.
(NOW KNOWN AS NXP INDIA PVT. LTD.) ..... Respondent
+ ITA 839/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,
NEW DELHI ..... Appellant
versus
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INDIA PVT. LTD.
(NOW KNOWN AS NXP INDIA PVT. LTD.) ..... Respondent
+ ITA 967/2018, C.M. Appl. No. 35750-35751/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ..... Appellant
versus
SIEMENS PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT..... Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr.Nageswar Rao, Mr.Sandeep S. Karhail and
Mr.Shtanik Chakraborty, Advs. In Item 27
Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax
Department with Mr. Dushyant Sama, Advocate in Item
28 & 29.
Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel for
ITD in Item 32.
Counsel for the respondent:
Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate in Item No.27
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Ashutosh Senger, Advocate for IT
Department in Item 27, 32
Mr. Himanshu S. Sinha, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar,
Advocates in Item 32.
Mr. Vishal Kalra, Mr. S.S. Tomar, Mr. Ankit Sahni,
Advocate for respondent in Item 28 to 31.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 14.02.2019 Arguments heard on behalf of the counsel for the parties. ITA 592/2018 shall be treated as the lead matter.
Learned counsel for the parties have been requested to file their compilation with respect to common arguments in law. It is open to the counsels to give separate note with respect to the aspect that are not common, in two separate pages, wherever necessary. Likewise, the Revenue shall file written submissions covering the common legal submissions and separate arguments on other issues, wherever necessary, by way of additional synopsis.
The common synopsis in either case should not exceed 7 pages with appropriate case reference to the case law and record and any other material (such as OECD guidelines) within a period of two weeks.
Judgment reserved.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 14, 2019 pkb