S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment being not fees for technical services ,not liable to deduct tax at source -DTAA-India –Canada [ S.9(2), Art 12 ]
CIT v. Mira Exim Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 28 (Delhi) (HC)S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment being not fees for technical services ,not liable to deduct tax at source -DTAA-India –Canada [ S.9(2), Art 12 ]
CIT v. Mira Exim Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 28 (Delhi) (HC)S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source-Compensation paid to joint venture –Not liable to o deduct tax at source – Disallowance was held to be not justified [ S. 194H, 194J ]
Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 521 (Cal) (HC)S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source –. A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. S. 40(a)(i) disallowance can be made only if the royalty falls under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) but not if it falls under Explanation 6 to s. 9(1)(vi) [ S.9(1)(vi), 194C,194J, 195 ]
CIT v. NGC Networks (India)(Pvt. Ltd( 2018) 167 DTR 245 / 304 CTR 306/ (2021) 432 ITR 326 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.orgS.40(a)(ia):Amount not deductible- Deduction at source-Purchase made from different group companies –Difference opinion – Matter was referred to Chief Justice for appropriate order -DTAA-India Japan –USA [ S.9(1)(i), 90, 195,Art ,24 ]
CIT v. Mitusubishi Corporation India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 252 Taxman 31 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: Mitusubishi Corporation India (P.) Ltd. v.ACIT (2014) 62 SOT 58 (URO) / 41 taxmann.com 162 ( Delhi) (Trib)S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Proviso excepting assessee from disallowance where payee has declared payment in his return and paid tax thereon has retrospectively applicable, hence no disallowance can be made .[ S. 201(1) ]
CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh. (2018) 402 ITR 238/ 303 CTR 294/ 167 DTR 179 (All) (HC)S.40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible- Payment to non –resident -Proviso amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 is not applicable for year 2002-03, hence not liable to deduct tax at source [S.9(1)(i),195 ]
DCIT v. Hazaria Cryogenic Engineering & Construction Management (P.) Ltd. (2018) 168 ITD 568 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 37(1): Business expenditure -Bogus purchase -Restriction of profit rate of 12.5% per. cent. of bogus purchases was held to be proper.
CIT v. Shekhar M. Kharote. (2018) 61 ITR 182 (Mum) (Trib)S.37(1): Business expenditure — Bogus purchases —Civil contractor – Merely on the basis of information form sales tax department purchases cannot be disallowed without giving an opportunity of cross examination .
ACIT v. Pinaki D. Panani. (Smt.) (2018) 61 ITR 7 (Mum) (Trib)S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Civil contractor — Purchases- No defects was found in the books of account – No disallowance can be made [ S. 145 ]
DCIT v. IHR Associates. (2018) 61 ITR 70 (Chd) (Trib)S.37(1): Business expenditure — Ad hoc disallowance was held to be not sustainable .
ACIT v. Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (20180 61 ITR 135 (Delhi) (Trib)