THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

194J read with section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. As the\nassessee failed to deduct the tax at source, the entire expenditure towards\nroaming charges was proposed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee. The\ndetailed objections filed by the assessee

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

194J read with section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. As the\nassessee failed to deduct the tax at source, the entire expenditure towards\nroaming charges was proposed to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and\nsection 40(a)(i) of the Act, added to the total income of the assessee. The\ndetailed objections filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains, such an arrangement\ncannot be regarded as a contract for work, since in those\ncircumstances, the parties do not work for each other they\nwork together for a common commercial object. That principle\nsquarely applies here. The assessee and the traders acted\ntogether for a common venture in securities trading; neither\nwas the contractor of the other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED , GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains, such an arrangement\ncannot be regarded as a contract for work, since in those\ncircumstances, the parties do not work for each other they\nwork together for a common commercial object. That principle\nsquarely applies here. The assessee and the traders acted\ntogether for a common venture in securities trading; neither\nwas the contractor of the other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRARAMBH SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains, such an arrangement\ncannot be regarded as a contract for work, since in those\ncircumstances, the parties do not work for each other they\nwork together for a common commercial object. That principle\nsquarely applies here. The assessee and the traders acted\ntogether for a common venture in securities trading; neither\nwas the contractor of the other

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

gains of eligible business for the first five years and upto 30% for the remaining five years in the ten consecutive assessment years out of the fifteen years starting from the time the enterprise started its operation. The legislature having ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in the opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time line

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. 9X MEDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

9X MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

194J of the Act in view of retrospective amendment in the definition of Royalty U/s 9(1) (vi) of the Act by introduction of explanation [6] with effect from 1/6/1976. As assessee has failed to do so, the above sum was disallowed under Section 40a (ia) of the Act. x. The learned Assessing Officer noted that despite no exempt income

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

194J/ 194C of the Act and, hence, ought not to be disallowed us 40(a)(ia) for purported non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J/194C of the Act. IV. Disallowance of Rs. 10, 00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

194J/ 194C of the Act and, hence, ought not to be disallowed us 40(a)(ia) for purported non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J/194C of the Act. IV. Disallowance of Rs. 10, 00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

194J/ 194C of the Act and, hence, ought not to be disallowed us 40(a)(ia) for purported non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J/194C of the Act. IV. Disallowance of Rs. 10, 00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act: 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

gains\nof eligible business for the first five years and upto 30%\nfor the remaining five years in the ten consecutive\n assessment years out of the fifteen years starting from the\ntime the enterprise started its operation. The legislature\nhaving ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in\nthe opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

capital market, overseas support services and FA&O division, finance, operation, information technology, human resources etc. and sales and trading support for assisting of overseas support and Indian based trade support. In response to the show-cause notice to provide the details of services received, the assessee had submitted the following services: (i) Finance (a) Controllers: M/s MSI (provider

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

capital market, overseas support services and FA&O division, finance, operation, information technology, human resources etc. and sales and trading support for assisting of overseas support and Indian based trade support. In response to the show-cause notice to provide the details of services received, the assessee had submitted the following services: (i) Finance (a) Controllers: M/s MSI (provider

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

capital market, overseas support services and FA&O division, finance, operation, information technology, human resources etc. and sales and trading support for assisting of overseas support and Indian based trade support. In response to the show-cause notice to provide the details of services received, the assessee had submitted the following services: (i) Finance (a) Controllers: M/s MSI (provider

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

capital market, overseas support services and FA&O division, finance, operation, information technology, human resources etc. and sales and trading support for assisting of overseas support and Indian based trade support. In response to the show-cause notice to provide the details of services received, the assessee had submitted the following services: (i) Finance (a) Controllers: M/s MSI (provider