← All Phrases

“Section 15(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 15Section 15(9)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 15(9) is ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India (388 ITR 383), cited in 71 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 15(9)

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India
388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan
247 ITR 260 · 2001 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

CIT v. C-Sam (India) Pvt Ltd.
398 ITR 182 · 2017 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A decision by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. C-Sam (India) Pvt Ltd. does not support the case of a party relying on it, particularly when other High Courts have made contrary findings.

9 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises 30 (Guj), (iii) PCIT v. D&H Enterprise
72 Taxmann.com 91 · 2016 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Addition under section 68 is deleted if the assessee repays the loan in the succeeding assessment year and this is supported by decisions of the jurisdictional High Court.

Outotec Oyj v. DDIT
76 Taxmann.com 33 · 2016 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

A case is factually distinguishable if the 'made available' specifications and procedures enabled the assessee to render services independently to its customers.

Judgments citing Section 15(9)

3K Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 2-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 62/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(9)

judgment as per the material available on record. The AO observed that as the assessee company was not given a certificate under section 15(9) of the SEZ Act, 2005, therefore, it was disentitled from claiming exemption under section 10AA of the Act, and disallowed the same. Also

Jewels Magnum, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue

ITA 52/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby -Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2

doubt, the assessee falls within the said definition, as they had been granted a Letter of Approval by the Development Commissioner under section 15(9) of the Special Economic Zones Act. That apart, the competent authority who intends to certify as to what would be the date of commencement

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The Rialto Exim P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 4Section 4(11)

letter of approval issued by the Development Commissioner. Thus assessee was granted a letter of approval (LOA) by the Development Commissioner, Surat w.r.t. section 15(9) of the SEZ Act, 2005 to set up a unit for undertaking the authorized operations of manufacturing and trading of the Diamonds and Jewellery

Rialto Exim, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Respondent Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Jayant Bhatt Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani
Section 10Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 145

letter of approval issued by the Development Commissioner. Thus assessee was granted a letter of approval (LOA) by the Development Commissioner, Surat w.r.t. section 15(9) of the SEZ Act, 2005 to set up a unit for undertaking the authorized operations of manufacturing and trading of the Diamonds and Jewellery