Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.

398 ITR 260Supreme Court of India2017#3182 most cited

What is Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd. authority for?

Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a tax on the profits of the domestic company, not on the shareholder. The Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea Co. Ltd. did not address the precise nature of DDT as a tax on the company versus the shareholder.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tata Tea Co Ltd · Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd · 398 ITR 260 · 85 Taxmann.com 346 · SC · Dividend Distribution Tax · DDT · domestic company · tax on profits · shareholder · section 115-O · section 10(34)

Also reported as

85 Taxmann.com 346

Sections most often in play

Section 115-OSection 237Section 139Section 239Section 250Section 154Section 244ASection 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 239section 237section 115wasection 115osection 2(43)section 57(i)section 115bbdddtdividend distribution taxdomestic companysection 116section 4(1)

Judgments citing Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1783/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…19) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said decision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (3…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1782/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said decision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1781/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said decision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1780/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said decision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1779/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the\nshareholder.\n2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\ncase of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said\ndecision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it\nis a tax on the company or a shareholder.\n2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in\nthe case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT\n[201…

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1778/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said decision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (39…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1777/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

…/2019) upholding that DDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said decision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it is a tax on the company or a shareholder. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT [2017] (394…

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the\n

ITA 1776/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: The Tribunal Raising The\Nfollowing Grounds Of Appeal For Ay 2008-09 & More Or Less Similar\Ngrounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised In The Appeals For Other A.Ys. As\Nwell:\Nita No(S). 1776 To 1783/Kol/2024\N Assessment Year(S) 2008-09 To 2015-16\Nphilips India Limited.\N“1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The National Faceless\Nappeal Centre, Delhi [The Ld. Cit(A)] Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Refund\Nof Excess Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Paid By The Appellant\Namounting To Rs.94,81,687.\N2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred\Nin Following The Special Bench Decision Of Mumbai Tribunal In The Case Of\Ndcit Vs Tata Oil India Pvt Ltd (Ita No 6997/Mum/2019) Upholding That\Nddt Is A Tax On Profits Of The Domestic Company & Not On The\Nshareholder.\N2.

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

…upholding that\nDDT is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the\nshareholder.\n2. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\ncase of Tata Tea Co. Ltd (398 ITR 260) (SC) upholding that the said\ndecision has not dealt with the nature of DDT i.e. as to whether it\nis a tax on the company or a shareholder.\n2. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in not appreciating the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in\nthe case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. DCIT\n[201…

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 3910, 3911 & 3912/Del/2024 [Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14] Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., (Appeals), Plant No. – 242-243, Industrial Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre, Growth Centre, Sector-3, Bawal, Delhi. Rewari, Haryana- 123501. PAN- AAECM3062B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ajit Jain, CA & Shri Siddesh Chaudale, Adv. (through V.C.) Revenue by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearin…

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 3910, 3911 & 3912/Del/2024 [Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14] Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., (Appeals), Plant No. – 242-243, Industrial Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre, Growth Centre, Sector-3, Bawal, Delhi. Rewari, Haryana- 123501. PAN- AAECM3062B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ajit Jain, CA & Shri Siddesh Chaudale, Adv. (through V.C.) Revenue by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearin…

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.- 3910, 3911 & 3912/Del/2024 [Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14] Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Commissioner of Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., (Appeals), Plant No. – 242-243, Industrial Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre, Growth Centre, Sector-3, Bawal, Delhi. Rewari, Haryana- 123501. PAN- AAECM3062B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ajit Jain, CA & Shri Siddesh Chaudale, Adv. (through V.C.) Revenue by Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearin…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1119/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1118/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1117/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(!), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1116/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1115/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1114/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1114 to 1120/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2020-21 Foseco India Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Gat No. 922 & 923, Pune Nagar Road, Income Tax, Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune Pune – 412208 PAN : AAACF1049H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Atul Poddar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 04-11-2024 Date of 11-11-2024…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…y and collection of tax on distributed profits are concerned. Non-obstante clause of Sec. 115-O indicates that this section is independent and divorced from the concept of 'total income' (Para No. 58) Our Submission: • Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Tea [2017] 398 ITR 260 while upholding the constitutional validity of Sec. 115-O referred to the provisions of Sec. 2(24) of the Act (i.e.. definition of income) read with Entry 82 of List I of the Constitution of India (union list). Hon'ble SC held that under Entry 82 since Central Govt. has power to charge taxes on income other than agricultural income and dividend f…

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…y and collection of tax on distributed profits are concerned. Non-obstante clause of Sec. 115-O indicates that this section is independent and divorced from the concept of 'total income' (Para No. 58) Our Submission: • Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Tea [2017] 398 ITR 260 while upholding the constitutional validity of Sec. 115-O referred to the provisions of Sec. 2(24) of the Act (i.e.. definition of income) read with Entry 82 of List I of the Constitution of India (union list). Hon'ble SC held that under Entry 82 since Central Govt. has power to charge taxes on income other than agricultural income and dividend f…

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2