“Section 17(2)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(2)(ii)2 judgments

ACIT, CIRCLE- 74(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI

ITA 6560/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit Vs. Indian Institute Of Technology, Circle-74(1), Delhi New Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 Pan : Aaati0393L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Karanjot Singh Khurana, Shri Devashish Jain & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 17(2)(ii)Section 201Section 201(1)

salary. As per Ld. AO, the perquisite on accommodation provided to the employees of the Respondent was to be computed in accordance Section 17(2)(ii) of the Act. 2.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee had filed an appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance ... authority has to decide the said question and record a finding as to whether there is 'concession' and the case is covered by Section 17 (2) (ii) of the Act. Only thereafter the authority may proceed to calculate the liability of the assessee under the Rules. In our considered opinion

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI vs. DATAMINE INTERNATIONAL LTD., , NEW DELHI

ITA 6383/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6383/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Datamine International Ltd., International Taxation, (Now Cae Datamine International Circle-1(2)(2), Ltd.), A-41, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd7600A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: None

Section 9(1)(vi)

explanation 6 to section 9(l)(vi) introduced in 2012 w.r.e.f. 1976 and Western Coalfields in the context of retrospective amendment to section 17(2)(ii) to highlight the impossibility of discharging withholding obligation. Holds that person mentioned in section 195 cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely