← All Phrases

“Section 209(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 209Section 209(1)(a)36 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 209(1)(a) is CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (209 ITR 63), cited in 100 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 209(1)(a)

CIT v. Shivanand Electronics
209 ITR 63 · 1994 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income for claiming specified deductions, such as under Section 80J or 80-IA, is directory and not mandatory. Such an audit report can be filed at any time before the assessment is framed or completed under Section 143(1).

Trustees of Shri Kot Hindu Stree Mandal v. CIT
209 ITR 396 · 1994 · High Court
80
citing judgments

Membership fees and subscription amounts received by a trust or society from its members are not considered 'voluntary contributions' under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, as they are not gratuitous payments or gifts but are made with consideration.

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT
383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.

DIT v. Mitsubishi Corporation
438 ITR 174 · 2021 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

The proviso to section 209(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which clarified the liability of non-residents to pay advance tax, has prospective effect only. Consequently, non-residents are not liable to pay interest under section 234B for assessment years prior to AY 2012-13.

Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT
365 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When contractual obligations are for an entire project, only the income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India is deemed to accrue or arise in India and falls within the tax net. This principle applies even in consortium arrangements where members have broader contractual roles, and income from supply of equipment should be characterized appropriately.

Trib.) 4) TVM Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
237 ITR 230 · 1999 · Reported
47
citing judgments

A non-resident entity's activities in India are assessed for Permanent Establishment (PE) under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, considering types like fixed place, construction, and agency PE, and the applicability of presumptive taxation under sections such as 44BBB.

Merinoply & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT
209 ITR 508 · 1994 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Transport subsidies received by a business operating in a backward area, being inseparably connected with the ongoing business and incidental to its expenditure, constitute a revenue or trading receipt taxable under the Income Tax Act.

Ahmadabad in ACIT v. Goldmine Shares & Finance (P.) Ltd.
113 ITD 209 · 2008 · ITAT
37
citing judgments

Deductions under section 80IA are to be computed with reference to the profits of each eligible unit independently, without considering the profits or losses of other units. Each eligible unit is treated as a standalone entity for the purpose of calculating this deduction.

Judgments citing Section 209(1)(a)

Perumal Pillai Sreenivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3186/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3186/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Perumalpillai Sreenivasan, Income Tax Officer, Block No.20 Flat 3078, Vs. Non Corp Ward -9(1), Jevvan Bheem Collector Nagar, Chennai. Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 101 [Pan: Bbbps-1465-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 26.02.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Ao/Cit(A) Is Erroneous, Is Contrary To Law, Opposed To Principles Of Natural Justice & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Case: 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Incorrect Grounds.

For Appellant: 5. The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to note that the cash deposited into the account
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

lacs would saddle the assessee with an obligation to pay “advance tax”, but stood corrected on a careful perusal of Section 208 and section 209(1)(a) of the Act, which contemplates determination of the said tax liability at the behest of the assessee. 14. As in the present case

Mr. Muppuri Damodar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

ITA 1231/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 249Section 250Section 69A

lacs would saddle the assessee with an obligation to pay “advance tax”, but stood corrected on a careful perusal of Section 208 and Section 209(1)(a) of the Act, which contemplates determination of the said tax liability at the behest of the assessee. 14. As in the present case