-
ITAT - There is no condition in Art. 24 of India-Singapore DTAA that the money ought to be remitted to or received in other Contracting State 'in the relevant fiscal year', as long as the income was received though in subsequent year.
Imerys Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10150 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 15, 17, 192: Concept of "salary" explained. Held that as "tips" are paid to employees of the assessee from an outsider on a voluntary basis and the employees have no vested right to receive the same, the same is not "salary" and the assessee has no obligation to deduct TDS
ITC Limited vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10149 (SC) · Sections 15, 17, 192
-
S. 245: Approach of the department of setting off / adjusting refund against demand without serving a prior s. 245 intimation to the assessee and without providing opportunity of hearing to assessee & without arriving at a satisfaction to the effect that such adjustment of refund can only be the mode of recovery of demand is bad in law. Dept directed to refund the amount set off / adjusted together with interest
Vijay Singh Kadam vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10148 (HC-DELHI) · Section 245
-
SC - TDS u/s 192 on salaries is not applicable on payment of tips by assessee hotel to its staff/waiters.
ITC LIMITED GURGAON Vs COMMISSIONER OF I.T. (TDS) DELHI
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10147 (SC)
-
S. 147: If the assessee responds to the S. 142(1)/ 143(2) notices, it means that he has submitted to the AO's jurisdiction and is estopped for filing a Writ Petition to challenge the same. The fact that the jurisdiction is challenged while participating in the proceedings is irrelevant
Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10146 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 142(1), 143(2), 147
-
S. 147/ 148, 151: Law on validity of reopening where S. 148 notice is issued in a mechanical manner, based on information received from another AO, and sanction is accorded by the CIT in a mechanical explained
Banke Bihari Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10145 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148, 151
-
ITAT - Agreement (Magazing sharing advertisement) between assessee and Kingfisher was on account of sharing of incremental advertisement revenue and cannot be said to be in the nature of works contract
DCIT vs. VJM Media (P) Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10144 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194C
-
ITAT - Provisions related to TDS on foreign remittance and appeal u/s 248 explained.
International Air Transport Association vs. ADIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10143 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 248
-
HC - Merely because the creditor could not be traced on the date when the verification was made, same is not a ground to conclude that there was cessation of the liability. No Sec 41(1) addition.
CIT vs Alvares and Thomas
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10142 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 41(1)
-
SC - No exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) to Visvesvaraya Technological University as it doesn’t satisfy the condition of being an institution ‘wholly or substantially financed by the Govt.’
Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10141 (SC) · Section 10(23C)
-
SC - SLP dismissed - Wheeling charges neither neither qualify as rent (u/s 194I) nor as FTS (u/s 194J) and thus no TDS required to be withheld.
CIT(TDS) vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10140 (SC)
-
HC - Waiver of 'principal' loan amount by bank is taxable perquisite of beneficiary assessee u/s 28(iv).
CIT. vs. Ramaniyam Homes P. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10139 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 28(iv)
-
ITAT - All taxes have been paid by British gas and second time TDS cannot be deducted on same amount.
DCIT. vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10138 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Revision of order u/s 263 cannot be done if two views are possible on the issue. There is no money borrowed or debt incurred as such provisions of sec. 2(28A) and sec. 194A do not apply.
Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (TDS)
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10137 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194A
-
ITAT - TDS u/s 194C and not u/s 194J is applicable to subscription payments made to TV channels for redistribution of TV Channels through cable operators.
ITO. vs. Wire & Wireless (India) Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10136 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 194C, 194J
-
ITAT - Explanation given by assessee that it was under a genuine belief that it was entitled for relief u/s 80 IA (supported by CA-certificate) is bonafide. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted.
Oxford Softech P. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10135 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 80IA
-
S. 40(a)(ia), though inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013, is retrospective in operation because it is curative and intended to remedy an unintended consequence. Accordingly, if the payee has paid the tax, the payer will not suffer a disallowance
Rakesh Tak vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10134 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract penalty
Oxford Softech P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10133 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 40(a)(ia)/ 192: Employees deputed pursuant to a secondment agreement are not "employees" of the assessee and so the amounts paid by way of reimbursement of their salary is not subject to TDS in the assessee's hands
DCIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10132 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia), 192
-
HC - Tribunal's order passed without dealing with its co-ordinate bench ruling makes the order a nonspeaking order and in breach of principles of natural justice.
DSP Investment Private Limited vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10131 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 14A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.