DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd.

5 ITR 75Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#25130 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd.

Granite Services International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 740/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…012] 52 SOT 457 (Bangalore ITAT). (5) CIT vs. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. [2001] 114 Taxman 141 (Bombay HC) (6) JDIT (Int. Tax) vs. KRUPP UHDE GmbH [2009] 26 DTR 289 (Mumbai ITAT): [2010] 1 ITR 614 (Mumbai) (7) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture vs. ACIT [2010] 5 ITR 75 (Mumbai ITAT) (8) Coca-Cola India Inc. vs. Addl. CIT [2006] 7 SOT 224 (Delhi ITAT) (9) ITO vs. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. [2005] 95 TTJ 53 (Delhi ITAT) 33. He accordingly submitted that reimbursement of Travel and conveyance expenses by the assessee to Granite USA does not warrant any tax deduction under section 195 of the Act. Since the amo…

At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. DCIT-Range-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. 142 ITR 493 (Cal) iv) Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) TIOL 187 v) CIT v. Fortis Health Care Ltd. 181 Taxman 257 vi) DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 41 SOT 72 (Mum) vii) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture v. ACIT (2010) 5 ITR 75 (Mum) viii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIt (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 263 (Mum) It was also submitted that the section 90(2) of the Act provides that in case of double taxation avoidance agreement with the Govt. of another country, the provision of this act will apply only to the extent if it is beneficial to the assessee. The assessee also demonstrat…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S at & S India Pvt Ltd, Karnataka

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. 142 ITR 493 (Cal) iv) Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) TIOL 187 v) CIT v. Fortis Health Care Ltd. 181 Taxman 257 vi) DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 41 SOT 72 (Mum) vii) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture v. ACIT (2010) 5 ITR 75 (Mum) viii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIt (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 263 (Mum) It was also submitted that the section 90(2) of the Act provides that in case of double taxation avoidance agreement with the Govt. of another country, the provision of this act will apply only to the extent if it is beneficial to the assessee. The assessee also demonstrat…

DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd. (5 ITR 75) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax