BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,145 results for “capital gains”+ Section 36(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,292Delhi1,145Bangalore551Ahmedabad348Chennai282Jaipur260Kolkata177Karnataka149Chandigarh147Hyderabad107Indore104Cochin100Pune83Raipur63Nagpur55Calcutta52Rajkot48Guwahati45Cuttack36Panaji35Surat35SC31Lucknow30Telangana21Agra17Visakhapatnam13Dehradun11Amritsar10Varanasi7Kerala5Rajasthan4Jodhpur4Ranchi3Patna2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income36Section 153C30Section 143(3)29Section 14724Disallowance23Deduction19Section 69A18Section 271(1)(c)14Section 3513Section 148

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

vii) and\nsection 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions under both section is\nindependent on each other?\"\n4. Since the issue raised by the revenue and assessee relating to the issue of\ndeduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) are common, the same are adjudicated\ntogether below.\n5. Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are general

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

Showing 1–20 of 1,145 · Page 1 of 58

...
12
Section 80I12
Natural Justice10

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

1) of section 74 of the Act provides, inter alia, that where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head "Capital gains" is a loss, the whole loss shall, subject to the other provisions of Chapter VI, be carried forward to the following assessment year and in so far as it relates

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1583/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1581/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1199/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2174/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2173/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. ” 47. Therefore, in assessee’s case also, it is an actual write off in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue is fully covered in favor of assessee. The appeal of the assessee

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

section 45 prescribes that any profits/gains on transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to tax as capital gains. Income from transfer of shares, be it short-term or long-term, is, per se, liable for taxation. It is only exempt from tax if long term gain on equity shares is liable to STT and not otherwise. Even

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

36,850 2,07,95,93,242 140.00 67,71,59,000 (1.40,24,34,242 0 market ) 9. In that report, it was further noted that Dr Roy & Radhika Roy have opened joint demat account. The first lots of 4835850 shares of NDTV limited were purchased on 26/12/2007 in open offer through/exchange at RS. 430/– per share resulting into

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

ITA 2707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

36,850 2,07,95,93,242 140.00 67,71,59,000 (1.40,24,34,242 0 market ) 9. In that report, it was further noted that Dr Roy & Radhika Roy have opened joint demat account. The first lots of 4835850 shares of NDTV limited were purchased on 26/12/2007 in open offer through/exchange at RS. 430/– per share resulting into

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2020/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

36,850 2,07,95,93,242 140.00 67,71,59,000 (1.40,24,34,242 0 market ) 9. In that report, it was further noted that Dr Roy & Radhika Roy have opened joint demat account. The first lots of 4835850 shares of NDTV limited were purchased on 26/12/2007 in open offer through/exchange at RS. 430/– per share resulting into

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2019/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

36,850 2,07,95,93,242 140.00 67,71,59,000 (1.40,24,34,242 0 market ) 9. In that report, it was further noted that Dr Roy & Radhika Roy have opened joint demat account. The first lots of 4835850 shares of NDTV limited were purchased on 26/12/2007 in open offer through/exchange at RS. 430/– per share resulting into

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2021/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

36,850 2,07,95,93,242 140.00 67,71,59,000 (1.40,24,34,242 0 market ) 9. In that report, it was further noted that Dr Roy & Radhika Roy have opened joint demat account. The first lots of 4835850 shares of NDTV limited were purchased on 26/12/2007 in open offer through/exchange at RS. 430/– per share resulting into

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

ITA 2706/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

36,850 2,07,95,93,242 140.00 67,71,59,000 (1.40,24,34,242 0 market ) 9. In that report, it was further noted that Dr Roy & Radhika Roy have opened joint demat account. The first lots of 4835850 shares of NDTV limited were purchased on 26/12/2007 in open offer through/exchange at RS. 430/– per share resulting into

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. PRATHMA BANK, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4090/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

capital gain had been disclosed at Rs.24,95,386/- and finally in column No. 14 losses of current year carried forward had been claimed at Rs.28,62,39,159/-. The AO noticed that the assessee vide revised return filed on 11.10.2010 had claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act at Rs.105,69,80,000/- which

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3704/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

vii) on the ground that it is not engaged in the long-term capital financing for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The proposed amendment seeks to provide that corporations engaged in providing long-term finance (including - refinancing) for development of housing in India will be eligible for the benefit under section This amendment will take

M/S. LUCKY EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

vii)/37(l). It was noted that impugned moneys were advanced by assessee so as to boost his career, thus, moneys were advanced as a measure of commercial expediency. It was held that advances given by assessee was to be allowed as deduction either under section 37(1) or under section 28(i) as business loss and 25 deduction could

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3366/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 5(2)(b)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income from the business carried on by a non-resident assessee