CIT v. Link

244 ITR 93Reported decision#23923 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Link

ITO. TDS III (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Petroleum India International, Mumbai

ITA 5921/MUM/2000[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

…, there was no employer- employee relationship between the PII and the secondees and, hence, PII cannot be considered as the person responsible for paying. 9. Before parting with this issue, I would like to mention Gujarat High court decision in CIT vs. Link 244 ITR 93 wherein it has been held that the living allowance paid to employee is not a personal advantage and therefore does not constitute Perquisite which can be subjected to tax. 10. The appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be an assesse in default for its failure to deduct tax from the payment to resident secondees. 11. PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT SECO…

Income Tax Officer (TDS) III(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Petroleum India International, Mumbai

ITA 5913/MUM/2000[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

…, there was no employer- employee relationship between the PII and the secondees and, hence, PII cannot be considered as the person responsible for paying. 9. Before parting with this issue, I would like to mention Gujarat High court decision in CIT vs. Link 244 ITR 93 wherein it has been held that the living allowance paid to employee is not a personal advantage and therefore does not constitute Perquisite which can be subjected to tax. 10. The appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be an assesse in default for its failure to deduct tax from the payment to resident secondees. 11. PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT SECO…

ITO, TDS III (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Petroleum India International, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

…, there was no employer- employee relationship between the PII and the secondees and, hence, PII cannot be considered as the person responsible for paying. 9. Before parting with this issue, I would like to mention Gujarat High court decision in CIT vs. Link 244 ITR 93 wherein it has been held that the living allowance paid to employee is not a personal advantage and therefore does not constitute Perquisite which can be subjected to tax. 10. The appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be an assesse in default for its failure to deduct tax from the payment to resident secondees. 11. PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT SECO…