Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

Sky High Lxxix Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1546/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sky High Lxxix Leasing Co. Ltd., The ACIT (IT), Circle-4(2)(1), Room No. 627, 6th Floor, 2, Grand Canal Square, Grand Canal Harbour, Dublin D02 A342, Vs. Kautalya Bhavan, G. Block, Ireland, State outside India-D02 A342. Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN: ABFCS0570G Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1547/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sky High XC Leasing Co. Ltd., The ACIT (IT), Circle-4(2)(1), Room No. 627, 6th Floor, 2, Grand C…

Naik Naik and Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT -16(3), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the assessee is entitled to credit of TDS to the extent deduction from its receipts is established on the basis of the contemporaneous material placed on record

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…ly demand the same sum from the deductee. Section 205, it was held, places a complete embargo on such recovery. 17. Support was also drawn from the Supreme Court’s rulings in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, affirming that CBDT circulars and instructions are binding on the Revenue. It was contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing the binding instructions of CBDT into a dead letter by treating Form 26AS as the sole governing factor. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, including t…

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

…which lay down that a taxpayer has the option to choose the provisions of the Act or the tax treaty, whichever is beneficial, in determining its liability to tax in India: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in 263 ITR 706 Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar reported in 267 ITR 654 5.9 The Ld.Sr.Counsel thus submitted that TRC is conclusive proof of assessee’s tax residency status in Singapore and thus the assessee is eligible for the beneficial provisions as per India India-Singapore DTAA. 11 ITA No.2378/Mum/2022;…