Para 17., In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

119 STC 533Supreme Court of India2000#18887 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Para 17., In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5(2)Section 9

…es have been dissected for the purpose of tax avoidance. (d) That the learned AO/DRP has erroneously held that the relevant two contracts were in the nature of non-divisible 'works contract' and erroneously relied on the decision of Hindustan Shipyard (2000) 119 STC 533; (2000) 6 SCC 579, not applicable on facts and in law. (e) That the learned A.O./DRP has made erroneous observations, assumptions of facts, in coming to the conclusion that the business activities carried out by the service (deemed) PE of the Appellant in India contributed to the earning of profits earned by the Appellant from offshore supply of…

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

ITA/274/2013HC Karnataka17 Oct 2019

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 260Section 263Section 40

…CIT (1993)111 CTR(SC) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC), and it was held that “any work” means “any work” and not a works contract which has a special connotation in the tax law. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 119 STC 533 (SC) enunciated certain principles and drew a distinction between two concepts namely “contract for sale of goods” and “works contract”. Similarly, in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. KONE Elevators (India) Ltd., (2005)3 SCC 389, the Supreme Court has held 11 that the main object in a contract of sale is the transfer of property and d…

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), MUMBAI vs. PATEL PRATIBHA JV, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Harshwardhan DatarFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 44A

…sentially, the question is of interpretation of the "contract". It is settled law that the substance and not the form of the contract is material in determining the nature of transaction.” Para 17., In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2000]119 STC 533, the Supreme Court enunciated certain principles which were deduced from he decided cases on the distinction between the two concepts. The second, third and fourth principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court, read thus :- "(2) Transfer of property of goods for a price is the linchpin of the definition of "sale". Whether a particular…

M/S. SUBEX LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1430/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 10B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2006-07 M/s. Subex Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Adarsh Tech Park, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road, Circle 12(3), Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AABCS 9255R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chythanya K.K., Advocate Respondent by : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 25.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2016 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal preferred by t…