Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Arthusa Offshore (Uttarakhand High Court)

CIT vs. Arthusa Offshore (Uttarakhand High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 23, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

The word “tax”in Articles 14(2) and 2(1)(b) of the India-USA DTAA includes “surcharge” and for purposes of Article 14(2) which provides that the rate of tax payable by a USA company shall not exceed 15% of the rate payable by domestic companies, the surcharge payable by domestic companies has to be included.

Note: The decision of the ITAT Bombay in Bank of America Vs. DCIT 73 TTJ 51 was disapproved.

Related Posts:

  • DIT (IT) vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd (Uttarakhand High Court) (Full Bench) Except to state that the said judgment needs re-consideration, no justifiable cause has been shown as to why this Court should take a view different from that of the Delhi High Court, in Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd.48, more so when the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has…
  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
  • Sayarmull Surana vs. ITO (Madras High Court) The very edifice on which the prosecution was launched against the accused, has crumbled like a pack of cards. There was no necessity for the Income Tax Department to have launched the prosecution hurriedly since the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution has been excluded by…
  • PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The transactions in question were clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to…
  • CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court) Thus two port-folios one for "Investment" and other for "Trading". Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court) 

    High Court deprectaes the practice of the department in mechnaically filing frivolous appeals. Observes that it causes inconvenience and wastes the time of the Court and results in sidelining of important issues. It accordingly imposes costs of Rs. 10,000 on … CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court)…
  2. CIT vs. Saumya Leasing (Bombay High Court) 

    Deduction under section 80M can be claimed even in respect of the interim dividend declared for the succeeding financial year before the due date.
  3. Rohitsava Chand vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) 

    Non-compete compensation received by an employee-director for agreeing not to carry on any business activity relating to software development for a period of 18 months constitutes a capital receipt as it is for loss of a source of income. See … Rohitsava Chand vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)…
  4. CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court) 

    The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.Read more ›
  5. CIT vs. Lazor Syntex & CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading (Bombay High Court) 

    In McDowell 154 ITR 148, the Court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the tax payer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected to in the future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a…