Agra) (iv) K K Khullar v. DCIT

44 ITR 529Supreme Court of India1962#2493 most cited
47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 271HSection 10Section 131 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)agency pefixed place pebusiness connectionlive linkinterest u/s 234btax treatytransfer pricing adjustmentsection 144c(13)dispute resolution paneltangible materialsection 234b

Judgments citing Agra) (iv) K K Khullar v. DCIT

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SATISH JALAN, SHILLONG

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…investigation by the Assessing Officer of the same facts on which a decision of an earlier year was arrived at. We may draw strength from the cases of Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416 (SC) and Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC). In M.M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 106, the Supreme Court held that the rule of res judicata does not apply so as to make a decision on question of facts or law in a proceeding for assessment in one year binding in another year and that the assessment and the facts found are conclusive I.T.A. No. 62/GTY/2025 Satish Jalan only in the year of…

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 917/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

…a v. Addl CIT [IT Appeal No. 161(Chd.) of 2012, dated 10-9-2014] (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431/148 ITD 166 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K.K. Khullar v. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 6. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale/explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the I.T Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions have been provided under the heading "E. Rationalization of Tax D…

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 914/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

…a v. Addl CIT [IT Appeal No. 161(Chd.) of 2012, dated 10-9-2014] (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers v. Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431/148 ITD 166 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K.K. Khullar v. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 6. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale/explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the I.T Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions have been provided under the heading "E. Rationalization of Tax D…

OMPRAKASH DAULATRAM NOGAJA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(2(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3996/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vanesh Kumar NadarFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (SR DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ct is a self contained assessment period and a decision in one assessment year does not ordinarily operate as res judicata in respect of matters decided in any subsequent year as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT, 44 ITR 529. Hence, Accordingly, he upheld the action of the AO. 5. In the course of hearing before us, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Authorized Representative, reiterated the same contentions as made before them. Apart from it, a written submission is also made. It is submitted that in its case, business activities were co…

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2020[2013-14 (26Q-Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Anup Sharma vs Addl. CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order dt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) vi) C.K. Gangadharan vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC) vii) CIT vs Swapnaroy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (Allahabad) 4. Before we request Hon’ble Tribunal to take to elaborate discussions on the issue, it would be beneficial if we kindly ITA Nos. 1027 to 1038 & 1040/Del/2020 6 W Serve Technologies Pvt. Ltd. have a look through the provisions contained…

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2020[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Anup Sharma vs Addl. CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order dt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) vi) C.K. Gangadharan vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC) vii) CIT vs Swapnaroy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (Allahabad) 4. Before we request Hon’ble Tribunal to take to elaborate discussions on the issue, it would be beneficial if we kindly ITA Nos. 1027 to 1038 & 1040/Del/2020 6 W Serve Technologies Pvt. Ltd. have a look through the provisions contained…

BENTLEY NEVADA INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6303/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

…ot even pertain to the Assessment Year under consideration. In our considered opinion, whether a PE exists or not is a fact specific issue and is to be decided on year on year basis. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Das Kesardeo Morarka 44 ITR 529 has held that each Assessment Year is separate and, therefore, judgment adjudicated by the taxing authorities in one Assessment Year on the basis of substance before them cannot be regarded as binding in the assessment of subsequent years. 22. After considering the facts in totality, in light of the reasons recorded for reopening assessment an…

BENTLEY NEVADA INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6302/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

…ot even pertain to the Assessment Year under consideration. In our considered opinion, whether a PE exists or not is a fact specific issue and is to be decided on year on year basis. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Das Kesardeo Morarka 44 ITR 529 has held that each Assessment Year is separate and, therefore, judgment adjudicated by the taxing authorities in one Assessment Year on the basis of substance before them cannot be regarded as binding in the assessment of subsequent years. 22. After considering the facts in totality, in light of the reasons recorded for reopening assessment an…

BENTLEY NEVADA INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

…ot even pertain to the Assessment Year under consideration. In our considered opinion, whether a PE exists or not is a fact specific issue and is to be decided on year on year basis. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Das Kesardeo Morarka 44 ITR 529 has held that each Assessment Year is separate and, therefore, judgment adjudicated by the taxing authorities in one Assessment Year on the basis of substance before them cannot be regarded as binding in the assessment of subsequent years. 22. After considering the facts in totality, in light of the reasons recorded for reopening assessment an…

BENTLEY NEVADA INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6300/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

…ot even pertain to the Assessment Year under consideration. In our considered opinion, whether a PE exists or not is a fact specific issue and is to be decided on year on year basis. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Das Kesardeo Morarka 44 ITR 529 has held that each Assessment Year is separate and, therefore, judgment adjudicated by the taxing authorities in one Assessment Year on the basis of substance before them cannot be regarded as binding in the assessment of subsequent years. 22. After considering the facts in totality, in light of the reasons recorded for reopening assessment an…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOGEFI- MNR ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2089/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the ju…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1698/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the ju…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1697/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the ju…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1696/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the ju…

M/S SOGEFI MNR FILTRATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 757/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the ju…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…Anup Sharma vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 161/CHD/2012 order dated 26.08.2014, ITAT Chandigarh) v) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs. DCIT (2014) 148 ITD 166 (Agra Tri.) vi) K K Khullar vs. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 (Del) vii) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 529 (SC) viii) C. K. Gangadharan vs. CIT (2008) 72 Taxman 87 (SC) ix) CIT vs. Swapna Roy (2011) 331 ITR 367 (Allah) 21. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) accepted that benefit of deduction under Section 80I/ 80IA of the Act is admissible on Lean gas manufactured/ produced, but held…

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT-LTU DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…Anup Sharma vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 161/CHD/2012 order dated 26.08.2014, ITAT Chandigarh) v) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs. DCIT (2014) 148 ITD 166 (Agra Tri.) vi) K K Khullar vs. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 (Del) vii) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 529 (SC) viii) C. K. Gangadharan vs. CIT (2008) 72 Taxman 87 (SC) ix) CIT vs. Swapna Roy (2011) 331 ITR 367 (Allah) 21. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT(A) accepted that benefit of deduction under Section 80I/ 80IA of the Act is admissible on Lean gas manufactured/ produced, but held…

BATHLINE INDIA (PVT.) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9341/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q,Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

…arma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 8. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale / explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions have been provided under the heading “E. Rationalization of Ta…

BATHLINE INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9336/DEL/2019[2013-14 (24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

…arma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 8. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale / explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions have been provided under the heading “E. Rationalization of Ta…

AIRCON ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9069/DEL/2019[2014-15 (Qtr-4,26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

…rma vs Addl CIT, ITA No.l61/CHD/2012, order clt.26.08.2014 of ITAT, Chandigarh (iii) Meeraj Estate & Developers vs DCIT [2014] 44 taxraann.com 431 (ITAT, Agra) (iv) K K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) (v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) 5. The ld. DR drew the attention of the Bench to the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2012 which elaborates the rationale / explanatory notes with respect to amendments being brought in the provisions of the L T. Act. The rationale for such amendments in TDS/TCS related provisions have been provided under the heading “E. Rationalization of T…

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3