Month: February 2015

Delhi H.C : the income from supply of software embedded in the hardware equipment or otherwise to customers in India amounts to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and under Article 13(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTTA) between India and France, Canada, Germany, China etc

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Alcatel Lucent Canada Section 9 S. Ravindra Bhat And R.K. Gauba, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 119 To 142 & 144 To 157 Of 2015 Cm Nos. 3049 Of 2015 And Others February 27, 2015 ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM Nos.3050/2015, …

Allahabad H.C : The Assessing Officer has not recorded any positive and categorical satisfaction about concealment in the assessment order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and cancelling the penalty on this ground alone when in the assessment order the satisfaction for initiating penalty is clearly mentioned

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. Section : 271(1)(c) Period : 1-4-1999 to 31-5-1999 Sudhir Agarwal And Shashi Kant, JJ. IT Appeal No. 56 Of 2006 February 27, 2015 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. …

Delhi H.C : Whether the ITAT fell into error in directing inclusion of data and particulars pertaining to Cyber Media Events Limited in the transfer pricing studies, to determine arm’s length price (ALP) for the purpose of income tax

High Court Of Delhi CIT-V vs. Nortel Networks India A. (P.) Ltd. Section : 92C Assessment Years : 2007-08 and 2008-09 S. Ravindra Bhat And R.K. Gauba, JJ. IT Appeal No. 115 Of 2015 Cm Appl. Nos. 3043 To 3045 Of 2015 February 24, 2015 JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – The Revenue is in appeal …

Allahabad H.C : Whether the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the peak credit of A.Y. 1995-96 to be set off against the peak credit of A.Y. 1996-97 without appreciating that the Hon’ble ITAT in its order dated 13.02.2004 had never directed that the benefit of inter – year peak credits should be allowed to the assessee

High Court Of Allahabad CIT (Central), Kanpur vs. Sharraf Trading Co. Section 158BB Sudhir Agarwal And Shashi Kant, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 96 Of 2003, 81 & 87 Of 2007, 333 & 332 Of 2011 And 160 Of 2012 February 24, 2015 ORDER 1. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for appellant for admission. None is …

Bombay H.C : The interest under section 220(2) will be legally leviable from the date of default in payment of demand by the assessee till the date of admission of application by the assessee by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) and not till the final order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4)

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Smt. Leonie M. Almeida Section : 220, 245D S.C. Dharmadhikari And S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. IT Appeal No. 4794 Of 2010 February 24, 2015 JUDGMENT S.P. Deshmukh, J. – The appellant purports to pose the question of law referred to hereinbelow : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of …

Allahabad H.C : Whether it is necessary for the assessing authority to mention in the assessment order regarding inquiry made by him, reply received from the assessee thereon or material supplied by the Department and discussion thereon and demonstrate from the order that he has made inquiry in the matter and has been satisfied with the reply of the assessee or mere inquiry is sufficient to pass an order of assessment and to exclude application of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in such a case.

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. Section : 263 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sudhir Agarwal And Shashi Kant, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1 Of 2015 February 23, 2015 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. …

Rajasthan H.C : the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty imposed upon the appellant-assessee under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the claim of the assessee was a debatable one and there was no specific finding that the assessee had submitted false or incorrect accounts

High Court Of Rajasthan Anoopgarh Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vs. ACIT, Sri Ganganagar Section 271(1)(c), 45 Govind Mathur And Ms. Jaishree Thakur, JJ. D.B. It Appeal No. 1 Of 2014 February 23, 2015 JUDGMENT 1. The substantial question of law under adjudication in this appeal is that : “Whether on the facts and in the …
Malcare WordPress Security