-
The burden to establish existence of fixed place PE is entirely on the Revenue and in the present case the Revenue failed to discharge the said burden.
Sime Darby Engineering Sdn Bhd Vs DCIT(International Taxation)
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31606 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Provision is in relation to claims incurred but yet to reported by the insured to the Assessee, on the basis of actuarial valuation as mandated by IRDA and the claims are now well settled.
Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd Vs JCIT (OSD)
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31605 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Exchange of Information provided for in the Protocol will be applicable for information relating to any fiscal year beginning on or after the Apr 1, 2011.
Praveen Sawhney Vs The A.C.I.T
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31594 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee is directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.10 Cr. before the Revenue on or before Jun 2, 2023, which shall remain in force until the disposal of Assessee’s appeal.
Nikesh Arora Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31593 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Merely because the transaction is through account payee cheque alone cannot convert a non-genuine transaction into a genuine transaction.
Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala Vs ITO
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31575 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
Revenue failed to provide any corroborative evidence to demonstrate that the Assessee carried out business/profession in India wholly or partly through a fixed place of business.
MTR Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31574 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Under the provisions of Rule 11UA, the Assessee has option to value shares under DCF method or NAV method.
Gamma Pizzakraft (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31551 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Right of lessee as to first priority of purchase of leased property does not fall within the ambit of capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) and the compensation received upon settlement of litigation was not taxable as capital gains.
Ishvakoo Grand Plaza Vs DCIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31517 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
If the income generated from the transactions arising out of the contract was offered to tax in subsequent years, it is revenue neutral and it cannot be brought to tax in the relevant AYs.
Sahara India Power Corporation Limited Vs ACIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31508 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In the facts and peculiar circumstances of the Assessee’s case, the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T were inapplicable.
Delhi State Taxi Operators’s Co-operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd Vs JCIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31443 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 269SS, 269T
-
In absence of profit related element, a receipt cannot be classified as income in the hands of recipient and accordingly, reimbursement cannot be treated as income and cannot be subject to tax deduction at source or income tax.
TPF Getinsa Euroestudios S.L Vs ACIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31404 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since the PE in relation to JKSPDC Project cannot be construed to be the PE in respect of JKHCL and JVL Projects, Force of Attraction Rule does not apply.
Lahmeyer International GmbH Vs DDIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31358 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The receipts in the present case certainly cannot fall within scope of Article 14, therefore, the only provision under which the receipts can fall is business profits as provided under Article 7 of the tax treaty.
Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide Vs ACIT, ADIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31347 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the receipts are covered under section 44BB of the Act, automatically, they are excluded from the definition of royalty as provided under Explanation 2(via) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
Pacific Crest Pte. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31346 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 44BB
-
Section 44BBB does not speak of engagement of a foreign company for supply in connection with the turnkey power project, the provisions of Section 44BBB are not applicable.
UK Grid Solution Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31340 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - While the CIT has the power to consider fresh issues during proceedings under Section 263, a fresh show cause notice must be issued to the Assessee, presenting the new issues for their response.
Samsung C & T Corporation Vs CIT (1nternational Taxation)-3
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31264 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The sum related to payment of interest on late payment of TDS was neither added by the Assessee to the taxable income for the relevant AY nor the Revenue had added the same during the course of assessment.
Delhivery Pvt. Ltd Vs Pr. CIT-3
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31184 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
Computation of profit under Section 44BB is unsustainable as, it is not consistent with the position taken on the issue in past AYs.
Vetco Gray Pte. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31170 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The deduction of TDS doesn’t give any credence or legalize the payments which are in contravention with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31157 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Whether the Assessee is a tax resident of Singapore or not is a highly debatable issue and conclusion on these issues cannot be reached on conjectures, surmises, doubts and suspicion.
Tata NYK Shipping Pte. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2023) TaxCorp(LJ) 31119 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.