← All Phrases

“Section 153(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 153Section 153(5)44 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 153(5) is MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. 381 7 (6 SCC 312), cited in 138 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 153(5)

MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. 381 7
6 SCC 312 · 2012 · Reported
138
citing judgments

Where proceedings are initiated under Section 147, but the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), it is not a prerequisite that the assessee must have filed a return under Section 139.

VVF Ltd. v. DCIT I (supra) and DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd.
46 SOT 141 · 2011 · ITAT
54
citing judgments

The Arm's Length Price for loans advanced to Associate Enterprises must be determined by the rate of interest prevalent in the country where the loan is received or consumed, taking into account the currency of the loan.

Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CITT
85 ITD 478 · 2003 · ITAT
44
citing judgments

Payments for transponder services do not constitute payment for the use of equipment and therefore do not qualify as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act for a non-resident. The use of satellite transponder services by broadcasters is not considered the use of equipment.

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation)
39 Taxmann.com 70 · 2013 · High Court
43
citing judgments

The case establishes that in the modern virtual world, an entity's virtual presence, rather than just physical presence, is key to determining its operational extent, especially when equipment is placed at customer premises. This principle guides the characterization of payments to non-residents, often as royalty, attracting withholding tax under Section 195, considering statutory explanations for deemed accrual of income.

Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. v. ITO
360 ITR 257 · 2014 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The 'use or right to use' of an asset, which is a condition for royalty income, is satisfied when possession and control are given to the hirer for their beneficial use, even if the owner retains ultimate ownership.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO
178 TTJ 708 · 2016 · ITAT
38
citing judgments

Payments made for interconnect usage charges to foreign telecom operators are not considered 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor are they subject to tax withholding under Section 195 of the Act.

ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd.
95 Taxmann.com 101 · 2018 · High Court
30
citing judgments

A jurisdictional defect cannot be rectified by a corrigendum, and mistakes in assessment orders must be faced by the concerned party.

WIPRO Ltd. v. ITO
86 ITD 407 · 2003 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

Consideration paid for the 'use' or 'right to use' equipment is taxable as royalty, even if there is no actual present use, as the right to use in the future triggers the royalty clause.

Judgments citing Section 153(5)

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

after a period of about three years. 49. Before proceeding further we would like to advert to relevant section 153(3) & section 153(5) which prescribe time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation and to “pass order giving effect” to an order passed under section 250 or section ... failed to pass. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that their case falls under proviso 1 & 2 to section 153(5) of the Act nor any explanation has been brought on record. When the AO was required to pass the order giving effect to the order passed

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

after a period of about three years. 49. Before proceeding further we would like to advert to relevant section 153(3) & section 153(5) which prescribe time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation and to “pass order giving effect” to an order passed under section 250 or section ... failed to pass. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that their case falls under proviso 1 & 2 to section 153(5) of the Act nor any explanation has been brought on record. When the AO was required to pass the order giving effect to the order passed

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

after a period of about three years. 49. Before proceeding further we would like to advert to relevant section 153(3) & section 153(5) which prescribe time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation and to “pass order giving effect” to an order passed under section 250 or section ... failed to pass. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that their case falls under proviso 1 & 2 to section 153(5) of the Act nor any explanation has been brought on record. When the AO was required to pass the order giving effect to the order passed

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

after a period of about three years. 49. Before proceeding further we would like to advert to relevant section 153(3) & section 153(5) which prescribe time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation and to “pass order giving effect” to an order passed under section 250 or section ... failed to pass. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that their case falls under proviso 1 & 2 to section 153(5) of the Act nor any explanation has been brought on record. When the AO was required to pass the order giving effect to the order passed