← 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)

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result of above discussion keeping in view the provisions of statute and Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2016, we accept the arguments of assessee, and ground no

ITA 305/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalwest Cost Paper Mills Ltd., Shree Niwas House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Pan: Aaact4179N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(3) (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Alpesh Dharod & Sh. Tarun Ashok Chopda, Ars Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 244A(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.01.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Alpesh Dharod &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 24ASection 271(1)(c)

expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (5) of section 153 to the date on which the refund is granted" 9. Further, Section 153(5) prescribed the time limit to pass order giving effect as under: "Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section ... would apply to cases covered under 153(5); thus where, in respect of certain issues, order giving effect to be passed under section 153(5), otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment is passed beyond the prescribed time-limit, interest under section 244A(1A) has to be granted