Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT/ACIT/JCIT/ITO -NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

…her, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT VS Podar Cements Pvt.Ltd. (1997)226 ITR 625 (SC), it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. Section 56(2)(x) clearly stipulates that where any immovable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an a…

DCIT (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2866/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit(It)-4(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Reliance Jio Room No. 1712, 17Th Floor, Infocomm Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 3Rd Floor, Maker Point, Mumbai-400021. Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6363G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh Vora/Ms. Moksha Moksha Mehta Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2022 For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - A. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee By Way Of Royalty U/S 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act, 1961 Read With Article 13 Of The India-Uk Dtaa. B. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Tax Was Not Required To Be Deducted At Source On The Payment Made By The Assessee To Reliance Jio Infocomm Uk (Rjiuk) For Availing Bandwidth Services As It Did Not Amount To Income Of The Payee

…rlands to hold that the amount was not taxable under the treaty in hands of payee, without appreciating that the said decision of Delhi High Court had not considered the principles of updating construction, as enunciated by apex court in case of Podar cements 226 ITR 625 (SC)?". 16. And the Hon’ble Bombay High Court answered the same as under: - “2 Though three separate questions are framed by the Revenue, issue is single namely - Whether the Respondent-Assessee while making payment on royalty to the payee Company failed to deduct tax at source, though required in law? 3 Before the Tribunal as well as before u…

Parmeshwar Fashions Impex Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

…ACIT the learned bench have held that it is the beneficial ownership and not titular ownership that is relevant for claim of depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For this learned Mumbai bench relied on the supreme court decision of Poddar Cement Ltd (226 ITR 625) and Bombay High Court decision of Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (201 ITR 995).” 3. The sole issue raised in the present appeal pertains to claim of 2 ITA. No. 2803//Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 depreciation of INR 7,37,523/- in respect of motor car purchased during the relevant previous year. The aforesaid claim of depreciation made by the…