Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd v. ADIT(2024) 297 Taxman 497 /464 ITR 508/ 337 CTR 39 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Strategic Oversight services-Not royalty-Business income-Since hotel premises were at disposal of assessee in respect of its business activities, Tribunal had rightly held that assessee had a PE in India in form of fixed place through which it carried on its business-DTAA-India-UAE [S. 9(1)(vi), art. 5(2)(a), 12]

PCIT v. Sunbeam Auto (P.) Ltd (2024) 297 Taxman 375 / 463 ITR 3 /337 CTR 249 (SC) Editorial : Sunbeam Auto (P.) Ltd v. PCIT (2020) 116 taxmann.com 763/ (2018) 402 ITR 309 (Delhi))(HC)

S. 4 : Income-Capital or revenue-Subsidy-Sales tax subsidy to be treated as a capital receipt-Department’s SLP dismissed.

PCIT v. National Textiles Corporation Ltd (2023) 226 DTR 281 / (2024)462 ITR 224 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Wrong claim of deduction-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed.[S. 260A]

PCIT v. Minu Bakshi (Ms.) (2024)462 ITR 301 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Furnishing inaccurate particulars-Order of penalty should clearly specify ground on which it is levied. [S. 260A]

Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. v. PCIT [2024]297 Taxman 168 / 462 ITR 4 (Raj)(HC)

S. 270AA : Immunity from the imposition of penalty, etc-No opportunity of hearing-No evidence to show misrepresentation of income or suppression of facts-Voluntary disclosure by the assessee and the failure of the authorities to properly apply the provisions, the court quashed the penalty order. [S. 264, 270A(9) 270AA(4), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Nya International (2024)462 ITR 44 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Special Economic Zones-Subjective exercise-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision is affirmed.[S.10AA]

PCIT v. Dimple Murarka (2024)462 ITR 212 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Stock-Order of revision is not valid.[S.133A]

PCIT v. UOI (2024)462 ITR 150 /337 CTR 876 (Pat)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Amendment by Finance Act, 2007-Settlement Commission called report-Failure to submit report with in time-Direction to proceed with application is valid-Writ petition of Revenue is dismissed. [S.245D(1), 245D(2B), 245D(2C), 245D(4), Art. 226]

Saudi Telecom Company v. CIT (IT) (2024)462 ITR 168 (Karn)(HC)

S. 225 : Collection and recovery-Stay of proceedings-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Deposit of 20 Per Cent. of demand-Liberty reserved to assessee to request Commissioner (Appeals) to consider merits of case expeditiously. [S. 226,250, Art. 226]

Bharti Cellular Ltd. v.ACIT (2024)462 ITR 247/298 Taxman 552/ 337 CTR 555 (SC) Editorial : Decisions in Bharti Cellular Ltd v. ACIT (2013) 354 ITR 507 (Cal)(HC), reversed. Bharti Airtel Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 33 (Karn)(HC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source-Commission or brokerage-Discount price-Franchisees or distributors at discount price-Assessee Cannot be made to ask for information from franchisee or distributor and deduct tax at source-Not under obligation to deduct tax at source on income or profit component in payments received by franchisees or distributors from third parties or customers, or while selling or transferring prepaid coupons or starter-Kits to distributors-Not liable to deduct tax source-Obligation to deduct tax at source arises only when legal relationship of Principal-Agent is established-Obligation and time and manner in which tax to be deducted at source, fixed by statute which cannot be modified or postponed on concession by Department-Servant-Distributor-Franchisee-Independent Contractor [S.119, 204, Contract Act, 1872, S.186]