CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics

302 ITR 209Reported decision2010#24380 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3296/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cent. (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 456 wherein the Hon'ble Court reversed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics [2010] 302 ITR 209. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. It emphasizes the fact that section 195(1) uses the word "Payer" and not the word "Assessee". The payer is not the assessee. It held that the payer becomes the assessee in default only…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jas Forwarding World Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cent. (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 456 wherein the Hon'ble Court reversed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics [2010] 302 ITR 209. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. It emphasizes the fact that section 195(1) uses the word "Payer" and not the word "Assessee". The payer is not the assessee. It held that the payer becomes the assessee in default only…

Ratnam Metals & Tubes Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2081/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri P. D. Shah, A.R
Section 80Section 80I

…hese losses has to be set off against income of the current year. After this set off, if there are some profits, the same is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(iv). In this regard, we find that in the case of ACTT vs. Goldmine Shares and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 209 (And), it was held as under: "to conclude we answer the question referred in the affirmative, in the favour of the revenue and against the assessee, in the terms that in view of the specific provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction…