M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

gains an amount which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have accrued to the assessee or been received by him and it must be confined to cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer is understated and since in such cases it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine and prove the exact quantum

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would become taxable income which is not the intention of Section 45Q of the IT Act. That, the said 1998 Directions cannot be taken as an excuse by the NBFC to compute lower taxable income under

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

391 of the Companies Act, 1956 approved by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and in such manner that the same is not a buy back in terms of the Section 115QA of the Act.” g) The matter was dealt with by the first respondent as under: “The submission of the assessee was considered but was not found acceptable

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

391(Gujarat), retention/continuation dues can be construed as income under the head “salaries”. According to the learned counsel, the Gujarat High Court (supra) had held that amounts paid outside India by the French company for rendering services in India though referred to as “retention remuneration” was not liable to tax in India because the word “earned” has a narrow