Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence P. Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497/ 281 taxman 19/ 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd v. DIT CIT ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC) /DIT v. Ericsson A.B . ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Royalties – Double Taxation Avoidance agreements – Liberal construction- DTAA -India – Singapore [S. 9(1) (vi), 195 , Art, 3, 12 (3) , 30 ]

Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence P. Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 (SC) / Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd v. DIT CIT ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC)/DIT v. Ericsson A.B . ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC) www.itatonline .org Editorial: CIT v. Alcatel Lucent Canada ( 2015 ) 372 TR 476 ( Delhi) (HC) affirmed , CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ( 2012 ) 345 ITR 494 ( Karn) (HC) CIT v. Sunray Computers P.Ltd ( 2012 ) 348 ITR 196 ( Karn) (HC) , AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd , Inn re ( 2012 ) 343 ITR 1 (AAR ) reversed .

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Computer software not royalty – Right to reproduce and right to use computer software separate rights -Not liable to deduct tax at source – Agreement has to be read as a whole , real nature of transaction to be seen reading agreement as a whole – DTAA – India – Singapore -India -China – Japan – Kingdom -USA [S. 2(7) , 2(37A, ) 4 , 5, 90 (2),195 ,201 (IA ) , Copyright Act, 1957, S .2(A ), 52(1)(aa) , Art , 3 (2) 12(3) 30 ]

Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v .CBDT (2021) 432 ITR 91 /199 DTR 81/ 319 CTR 389 / 280 Taxman 278(Guj) (HC).Editorial: On appeal , the honourable Supreme Court directed that the assessee be given benefit of the amounts deposited towards first two instalments while reckoning the tax liability of the assessee after revised assessment , Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v .CBDT ( 2022) 442 ITR 31 (SC)

Income Declaration Scheme , 2016

S. 191 : Tax paid under the Scheme shall not be refunded – Paid two instalments – Default in paying final instalment – Not entitle to get the refund already pad . [ S. 183, 185 Art, 226 ]

PCIT v. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 266 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 272 Taxman 185 (SC)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-limitation begins to run from date of order of Appellate Tribunal was served upon Commissioner (Judicial). [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 105 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed Dy.CIT v. Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. (2020) 270 Taxman 184 (SC)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Amount received from sister concern in a running account were held not to constitute as an infraction under Section 269SS-Tribunal should have remanded matter back-Order of penalty was set aside. [S. 254(1), 269SS]

PCIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 119 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 274 Taxman 214 (SC)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Depositors belonged to rural areas where adequate banking facilities were not available-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 269SS]

Vikas Bhatnagar v. ITO (2020) 120 taxmann.com 461 (AP)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed, Vikas Bhatnagar v. ITO (2020) 275 Taxman 594(SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Writ against penalty order is not maintainable when the quantum addition is in challenge before Appellate Authorities. [S. 144, 271(1))(b), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Ashok Kumar Maneklal Parikh (2020) 120 taxmann.com 268 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Ashok Kumar Maneklal Parikh (2020) 274 Taxman 457 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not declared capital gain arising from sale of leasehold rights-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 45, 54EC]

PCIT v. National Diary Development Board (2020) 114 taxmann.com 553 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. National Diary Development Board (2020) 270 Taxman 6 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Appeal pending before High Court-Reasonable explanation-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 36 (1)(iii)]

PCIT v. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra (Smt.) (2020) 113 taxmann.com 140 (MP) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra (Smt.) (2020) 269 Taxman 34 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gain not shown in original return-Revised return prior to issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Act-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S.45, 133A, 153C]