← All Phrases

“Section 13(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(4)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(4) is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), cited in 461 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(4)

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association
3 SCC 1 · 1992 · Reported
267
citing judgments

If an issue has been decided by a competent court or bench, and that decision remains undisturbed by a higher court, subsequent appeals on the same issue can be dismissed as being covered by the earlier judgment, underscoring judicial discipline.

III v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
93 Taxmann.com 33 · 2018 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

When computing the deduction available under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, communication expenses must be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of calculating the eligible relief.

CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf
113 ITR 589 · 1978 · High Court
235
citing judgments

An Income-tax Tribunal, operating anywhere in the country, must respect and follow the law laid down by any High Court, even if it is a non-jurisdictional High Court, as long as there is no contrary decision from another High Court on that specific legal point. The law declared by such a High Court is considered the final law of the land for the Tribunal.

Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
177 Taxmann.com 262 · 2025 · Supreme Court
216
citing judgments

The Supreme Court has not reached a majority verdict on whether the time spent in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) proceedings under Section 144C should be included within the overall limitation period prescribed by Section 153(3). Consequently, the legal position on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

(i) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
1 SCC 373 · 1997 · Reported
187
citing judgments

A statute must be read as a whole, construing every clause with reference to its context and other provisions, to determine the legislature's real intention and ensure a consistent enactment. This principle, known as "ex visceribus actus," helps avoid inconsistencies within the law.

CIT v. Synopsis International Old Ltd.
212 Taxmann 454 · 2013 · High Court
177
citing judgments

Payments for computer software are treated as royalty income under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, particularly concerning the expanded definition provided by Explanation 2 and Explanation 4.

Judgments citing Section 13(4)

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 722/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 721/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 720/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 719/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 718/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 717/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Mayur Global Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 154Section 234A

Thereafter, the bank issued notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the holding company on 01/03/2023 and further issued notice u/s section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 12/06/2023 and took possession of the mortgaged properties of the holding company and Assessee Company as well

ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Maven India Fund, Mauritius

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1766/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 13(4)Section 133(6)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

M/S. Datta Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd., Buldhana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Miss. J.S.Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(ix)

transaction was cancelled, MOU and agreement became ineffective and the Khamgaon Urban Coop. Bank took possession of the property as provided in section 13(4)(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and sold the property in it's own right

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Shri Saurabh Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1435/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1435/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. Saurabh Mittal A-19, House No.A-01, A-32, Income Tax, Centre- Westend, New Delhi-110 021 Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Room No. 1925, 19Th Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.334 & 333/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Shri. Saurabh Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Mittal Income Tax, Centre-Circle- Room No.543, 5Th Floor, बिधम/ 6(4) Ayankar Bhavan, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. M.K.Road, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Anapm2488D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 25.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. A. B. Koli, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 3Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M BALAGANESH,AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

ITO, TDS, Ward- 1(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Bhartiya Urban Infrastructure and Land Development, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 5559/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT- DR
Section 13(4)Section 133(6)Section 195(2)Section 197(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

capital gain arising out of the sale of the said shares is chargeable to tax in Mauritius only, as per the provisions of Section 13(4) of the DTAA. However, after examining all the details filed by the assessee company, it was seen that the assessee company was liable