Cognizant Technology Solutions vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
In Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd v.
CIT (supra), it was then concluded as below:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12835 (2.76 seconds)Documents citing
Engineering Analysis Centre Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2021
Cognizant Technology Solutions vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
“100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language
contained in the Explanations to Section 9(1)(vi) of the
Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider
and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition
contained in the DTAA, as per Section 90(2) of the
Income Tax Act read with Explanation 4 thereof, and
Article 3(2) of the DTAA. Further, the expression
“copyright” has to be understood in the context of the
statute which deals with it, it being accepted that
municipal laws which apply in the Contracting States
must be applied unless there is any repugnancy to the
terms of the DTAA. For all these reasons, the
determination of the AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific
Pty. Ltd. v. CIT, 2012 SCC OnLine AAR-IT 4 : (2012) 343
ITR 1, does not state the law correctly and is thus set
aside.”
17.14. The interpretation of Treaties, OECD Commentary and
the revenue's own understanding was also considered in detail as
below:
M/S Chatta Sugar Co. Ltd,Mathura vs A.C.I..T Circle-3, Mathura on 1 July, 2025
10.1. The question in the case of assessee as to whether there is any
remission or cessation of liability of the assessee amounting to
Rs.17,44,85,000 towards the outstanding dues of the cane growers or not,
the answer is categorical 'No' because the grant of Rs.17,44,85,000 received
by the assessee was paid in entirety towards the outstanding arrears of the
cane growers as directed in the letter dated 16.07.2008 granting the said
amount to the assessee company. In fact, the assessee is only a pass
through entity in the given facts of the case which the Government of Uttar
Pradesh had granted for the payment of outstanding cane prices of the cane
growers. In fact, in this case the government itself decided the
object/purpose of the grant Rs.17,44,85,000 and the mandate for its
utilization. The explanation of the assessee company that the amount of
Rs.1744.85 lacs received by the assessee from its shareholder which is state
of UP and when a shareholder provides the money to his company for
payment to the creditors of the company, it cannot be treated as remission
or cessations of liability is acceptable. Further in the case of of Rollationers
Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) relied by the Assessing Officer, there was a part waiver
of debts by the financial institutions, whereas, no such waiver has taken
place in the case of the assessee company. Therefore, we are of the
considered view that this amount is not taxable under section 41(1) of the
Act also.
State Bank Of India, Mumbai vs Addl Cit Cir 2(2), Mumbai on 11 October, 2024
122) The learned authorized representative submitted that the
coordinate benches have decided this issue in its favour
forced last several years and further it is also made from
to consider the decision of the Catholic Syrian bank Ltd
versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT versus CT
Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 (Madras), DCIT
versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705 (SC) and
Punjab & bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103 (Delhi).
Dcit 2(2), Mumbai vs State Bank Of India, Mumbai on 11 October, 2024
122) The learned authorized representative submitted that the
coordinate benches have decided this issue in its favour
forced last several years and further it is also made from
to consider the decision of the Catholic Syrian bank Ltd
versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT versus CT
Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 (Madras), DCIT
versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705 (SC) and
Punjab & bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103 (Delhi).
State Bank Of India, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 2(2), Mumbai on 11 October, 2024
122) The learned authorized representative submitted that the
coordinate benches have decided this issue in its favour
forced last several years and further it is also made from
to consider the decision of the Catholic Syrian bank Ltd
versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT versus CT
Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 (Madras), DCIT
versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705 (SC) and
Punjab & bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103 (Delhi).
Google Ireland Ltd, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 February, 2023
Revenue is generated by end customers clicking on link
and not because of ITES services. Even if it is interlinked, the
internal tools / intangibles / software of Google Ireland are
admittedly not transferred to assessee. The assessee has only right
to use these for rendering ITES services. Applying ratio of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre
of Excellence Private Limited (supra), this cannot result in royalty.
We proceed to examine whether the definition of 'Royalty' as per
Article 12 of India- Ireland DT AA is satisfied in the present case
considering the distribution agreement, services agreement and the
facts on record.
Aakash Universal Limited ( Merged ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(1), ... on 13 May, 2025
26. In the case of INCOME TAX : Where
Abhijavala assessee received share
Developers (P.) capital and unsecured loan
Ltd. v. Income from several entities and
Tax Officer produced documentary
9(1)(1), Mumbai evidences such as copy of
IN THE ITAT confirmation of accounts,
MUMBAI BENCH copy of PAN card, bank
'A' IT (APPEAL) statement ITR
NO. 952 (MUM) acknowledgement and
OF 2019 financial statements of all
[ASSESSMENT investors/lenders so as to
YEAR 2012-13] substantiate these
transactions and funds
were transferred to
assessee through proper
banking channels, no
addition under section 68
could be made on basis of
third party statements
Section 68 of the Income-
Dcit, Circle 1(2), (Intl. Taxn.), ... vs Blue Yonder Inc., Bangalore on 12 September, 2024
In other words, what the assessee
had sold as software, whether customised or not, is only on a copyright
article and not copyright per se. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court judgment in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of
Excellence P. Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the instant
case and the said contentions of the ld. DR are hereby rejected.
Dcit,Intl. Taxn., Circle 1(2), ... vs Blue Yonder Inc., Bangalore on 12 September, 2024
In other words, what the assessee
had sold as software, whether customised or not, is only on a copyright
article and not copyright per se. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court judgment in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of
Excellence P. Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the instant
case and the said contentions of the ld. DR are hereby rejected.