S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Not discussed on merits-Order of High Court set aside-Matter remanded. [Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, S. 49]
CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2022) 286 Taxman 569 (SC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Not discussed on merits-Order of High Court set aside-Matter remanded. [Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, S. 49]
CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2022) 286 Taxman 569 (SC)S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Pre-deposit-For entertaining an appeal it is not mandatory for pre deposit of tax in dispute. [S. 144, 144B,220(6), 246A, Art. 226]
K 553 V. Thutharipalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 677 (Mad.)(HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Court in writ jurisdiction cannot scrutinize or reappreciate facts, evidence or findings of Settlement Commission in reaching to its conclusion for allowing claim in settlement application. [S. 245D(1), Art, 226]
PCIT v. Settlement Commission (2022) 286 Taxman 129 (Cal.)(HC)S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation-Order is barred by limitation-limitation of two years as prescribed in section 201(3), as it existed prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1-10-2014, would apply. [S. 200, 201(3), 201(IA)]
ACIT v. ACER India (P) Ltd. ( 2022) 448 ITR 417/ 286 Taxman 570/ 215 DTR 35 / 327 CTR 613 ( (Karn.)(HC)S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Dividend-Rate of tax-Dividend received by a Switzerland based company from Indian company-Lower withholding tax rate of 5 per cent instead of 10 per cent in view of MFN clause-DTAA-India-Switzerland. [S. 9(1)(iv), Art. 10, Art. 226]
Cotecna Inspection SA v. ITO (2022) 286 Taxman 342 (Delhi)(HC)S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Foreign companies-Equalization levy-Direction to deduct tax at source 10 percent-When the assessee is subjected itself to Equalization Levy of 2 per cent on payments under consideration, as an interim measure, assessee would be entitled to receive its payment from GCI subject to a deduction of 8 per cent-DTAA. [S. 115JA, 166, 195(2), 197, Art. 226]
Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 592 / 211 DTR 175 / 325 CTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Foreign companies-Equalization levy-Direction to deduct tax at source 10 percent-When the assessee is subjected itself to Equalization Levy of 2 per cent on payments under consideration, as an interim measure, assessee would be entitled to receive its payment from GCI subject to a deduction of 8 per cent-DTAA. [S. 115JA, 166, 195(2), Art, 226]
Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 592 / 211 DTR 175 / 325 CTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Foreign companies-Equalization levy-Direction to deduct tax at source 10 percent-When the assessee is subjected itself to Equalization Levy of 2 per cent on payments under consideration, as an interim measure, assessee would be entitled to receive its payment from GCI subject to a deduction of 8 per cent-DTAA. [S. 115JA, 166, 195(2), Art. 226]
Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 592 / 211 DTR 175 / 325 CTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)S. 194IC : Deduction at source-Payment under specified agreement Compensation received on Acquisition of Land for Public Project under an agreement-Award-Assessee not specific person under Section 46-Compensation received not liable to Deduction of tax at source-Deductor to file correction statement of Tax Deducted-Department to process statement-Tax Deducted at source to be refunded [S. 139, 194LA, 199, 200(3), 200A(d), 237, Rule 37BA(3)(i), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 S. 46, 96, Art. 226]
Seema Jagdish Patil v. National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 445 ITR 382 / 288 Taxman 26 / 215 DTR 153 /327 CTR 281 (Bom.)(HC)S. 194A : Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT)-Compensation exceeded Rs.50 thousand-Tax deducted and deposited-MACT could not have directed Insurance Company to pay said amount yet again for its payment to claimants. [S. 194A(ix), Art. 226]
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.A.C.T. Kathua (2022) 286 Taxman 98 (J & K and Ladakh)(HC)