← All Phrases

“Section 4(7)”

Section References (mined)Section 4Section 4(7)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 4(7) is Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT (307 ITR 205), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 4(7)

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT
307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT
33 SOT 7 · 2009 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

When bad debts written off were not allowed as a deduction, any subsequent recovery from such bad debts cannot be brought to tax. This principle is upheld even if a deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts was allowed under section 36(1)(viia).

Diamond Services International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
169 Taxmann 201 · 2008 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Performing the job of grading diamonds in a laboratory and issuing a grading certificate does not constitute the transfer of technical skill, knowledge, or commercial experience to the customer. Such activities do not amount to the provision of technical services under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of a DTAA.

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stockbrokers (P) Ltd.
233 CTR 42 · 2010 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A requires a proximate cause establishing the relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income. The expenditure must have a real, dominant, and immediate relationship with income not forming part of the total income.

Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT. 7. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench-C
76 Taxmann.com 105 · 2016 · Reported
17
citing judgments

This case is cited for the proposition that deductions under sections 80IA and 80IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not available for infrastructure facilities unless they are specifically enumerated in the relevant sub-sections.

Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.
334 ITR 413 · 2011 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The court examines a transaction involving the purchase and sale of UTI units with a short holding period, highlighting the cum-dividend purchase in relation to a booking closing date.

CIT v. Abdul Aziz
251 CTR 58 · 2012 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer has not made independent inquiries to disprove the creditworthiness of creditors, whose affidavits and statements disclose their source of income, an addition made under Section 68 is rightly deleted. The revenue cannot rely on surmises, suspicion, or probabilities to decide the fate of the assessee.

AS Glittre v. CIT
91 Taxmann 286 · 1997 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Payment of tax under section 172(3)/(4) of the Income-tax Act is treated as advance tax, entitling non-residents to refunds and interest on such refunds in case of regular assessment under section 172(7).

Judgments citing Section 4(7)

Parameswaran Bashkar, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parameswaran Bashkar, The Income Tax Officer, House Number 784, Voc Layout, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vgp Layout, Uthandi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 119. [Pan: Adapb-4101-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4(6)Section 4(7)Section 54F

Appeals) - 16 failed to appreciate that the mistake pointed out by the JAO in the petition dated 27.04.2023 based on the provisions of Section 4(7) of the VSVS Act, 2020 was completely erroneous and mis-directed and thereby vitiating the request for restoring the assessment order on technical grounds ... restoring the matter to the file of the First Appellate Authority in the order dated 27.04.2021 was not opposed to the provisions of Section 4(7) of the VSVS ACT, 2020, thereby fortifying / validating the decision rendered by the First Appellate Authority on 27.06.2022 on merits in consequence