Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr.

307 ITR 265High Court2008#12642 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68

Judgments citing Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr.

SHA THANMAL SUKHRAJ JAIN & CO ,RANEBENUUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

ITA 961/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivasa Karthik Devara
Section 234BSection 250

…re Designers (P) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 188 (Delhi) 11 IKEA Trading (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT [2021] 123 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi - Trib.) Where creditors were brought forward balances, no addition under section 68 12 DCIT v. Amod Petrochem (P) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 265 (Guj.) 13 CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that regarding difference in accounts of Rs.60,529, the assessee did not Page 6 of 9 file any evidence as placed in Page 106 of PB. It was the primary duty of the assessee to substantiate all the ent…

SH. RAJNEESH THAKUR,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1565/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriSudhirSehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriAtulJayaswal, Sr. Dr
Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…lso placed on the following decisions in support of the contention that under section 68of the Act addition can be made only in respect of advances received in the year itself and not that received in earlier years. •Dy. CIT v. Amod Petrochem (P.)Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 265 (Guj.) •CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384/[2009] 183 Taxman 277 (Delhi) •CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404, Rajasthan High Court •Mahabir Prasad Prem Chand Jain v. ITO [1988] 40 Taxman 35 (Mag.)(Delhi) •Nuchem Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 87 TTJ 166 (Delhi - Trib.) 1565-Chd/2018- Rajneesh Thakur, Ludhiana 11 •Shri Vardhm…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 736/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 148Section 2Section 56Section 56(1)Section 68

…mentioned that in the case of ITO Vs Standard Leather (P.) Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann.com 109 (Kolkata - Trib.), the similar issue was before the Hon'ble Tribunal and it was held therein that: “Similarly in the case of Dy. CIT v. Amod Petrochem (P.) Ltd. [2008] 307 ITR 265 (Guj, it was held that as per section 68, there should be cash credits of previous year. The section provides for a deeming fiction of treating the sum found credited in the books of on assessee maintained for any previous year, being charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year, provided (i) the assessee offers no ex…

TAJ TV LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 456/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…he judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. and the principle therein would apply. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr. (2008) 307 ITR 265 would conclude this aspect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's conclusions and which are consistent with the factual materials and the principles of law laid down above are neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.” Thus, if admittedly Taj India is being remunerated at arm‟s length, th…

ADDL DIT RG 2, MUMBAI vs. TAJ TV LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 391/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…he judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. and the principle therein would apply. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr. (2008) 307 ITR 265 would conclude this aspect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's conclusions and which are consistent with the factual materials and the principles of law laid down above are neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.” Thus, if admittedly Taj India is being remunerated at arm‟s length, th…

ADIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TAJ TV LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2073/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…he judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. and the principle therein would apply. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr. (2008) 307 ITR 265 would conclude this aspect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's conclusions and which are consistent with the factual materials and the principles of law laid down above are neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.” Thus, if admittedly Taj India is being remunerated at arm‟s length, th…

TAJ TV LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2065/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…he judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. and the principle therein would apply. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr. (2008) 307 ITR 265 would conclude this aspect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's conclusions and which are consistent with the factual materials and the principles of law laid down above are neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.” Thus, if admittedly Taj India is being remunerated at arm‟s length, th…

TAJ TV LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 9079/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla,Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja,Am

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

…he judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. and the principle therein would apply. Similarly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr. (2008) 307 ITR 265 would conclude this aspect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's conclusions and which are consistent with the factual materials and the principles of law laid down above are neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.” Thus, if admittedly Taj India is being remunerated at arm‟s length, th…

Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) & Anr. (307 ITR 265) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax