ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

TDS are distinct from and exist apart from provisions for assessment under the Income Tax Act. This being so, it is clear that the India-USA DTAA and other such DTAAs would not apply to the persons spoken of in section 195 of the Income Tax Act who are not assessees, since the provisions of the DTAAs, when read with

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

set off against the profit of the relevant accounting year, the depreciation debited to the profit and loss account of any earlier year(s) or loss whichever is less. 36.3 Section 115J, therefore, involves two processes. Firstly, an assessing authority has to determine the income of the company under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Secondly, the book profit

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

set aside. It has been brought   to   knowledge   that   Civil   Appeal   No.8761/2016   filed against the said order is pending before this Court.  4. On perusal of the provisions of the Income Tax Act (for short “IT Act”), it reveals the proceedings of the assessment falls under   Chapter   XIV   of   the   IT   Act,   which   includes   return   of income, permanent account number

M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

loss of Revenue and hence remedial measures   have   been   provided   by incorporating the provision to ensure that tax liability to the said extent would stand shifted to the shoulders of the party who failed to effect deduction, in the form of penalty. On Page 27 of 31 deduction of tax, if there is delay in remitting the amount to Revenue

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Loss Account and only commission was shown as income. The ITAT observed that mere reflection in two different account books would not qualify for distinct and different treatment since both freight paid and freight charged partake the same character. The ITAT, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Before the High Court 8. Aggrieved yet again, the appellant approached the High Court

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

set aside on the ground that the expatriates exercised dual employment and that there was no obligation on the Branch Office to deduct tax under Section 192(1) on the Home Salary paid by the HO outside India. It was further held that the said Home Salary paid by the HO was not on account of or on behalf

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

set up only for making investments in order to derive benefits under the DTAA, that the head and brain were not situated in Mauritius, that Mr. Charles P. Coleman exercised control over the respondents, etc., did not appear to be tentative or based on a preliminary or prima facie examination. Rather, they reflected a conclusive determination. It also noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

TDS) found that the D.D.A. failed to deduct income-tax at source on the payment of interest made to the buyers as provided under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for the Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-1990. An appeal to C.I.T. failed and it was found that the Assessing Officer