Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vr. S.R.M. Firm And Others on 15 March, 1994

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Turquoise Investment And Finance Ltd. ... on 28 March, 2006

15. Coming to the question Nos. 3 and 4, whether the issue could be raised by the assessee before the Tribunal for the first time and having dismissed the cross-objection, the Tribunal could proceed to give a finding on the same, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the decision of the CIT(A) Ex./C in IT Appeal No. 112 of 2003 in which reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. VR. S.R.M. Firm (supra), but he has erroneously stated that it was held in the said decision that the said dividend is taxable in India under Sections 8 and 9 of the IT Act, 1961, though the decision holds to the contrary. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the fact that the said decision was cited bears testimony to the fact that contention was raised with regard to the non-taxability of the dividend earned in Malaysia in India under the agreement in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the appeals filed by the respondents, they have clearly raised the questions that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the cross-objection filed by the assessee on the ground of limitation specially when it took the view that the dividend income was not taxable in India. Attention has also been invited to Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The said rule reads as under:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Essar Oil Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 15 February, 2007

Similarly, in case of W.N.S. Global Services (supra), the Tribunal was dealing with the omission of section and its operation in the succeeding years. Thus, none of these judgments are applicable on the issue of substitution of the provisions of the Act because in the present case, this section has been substituted later without any substantial change as the language of the section remains exactly the same. This does not mean that any action taken under section 90 prior to its Essar Oil Limited 37 substitution cannot be enforced at all in the year in which they were applicable. He further reiterated that Explanation (3) to section 90, which was brought in statute with retrospective effect from 1st October 2009 only reinforce the intention of the legislation that any notification issued, would be applicable from the date of agreement. There cannot be two different meaning of the phrase "may be taxed" one prior to notification and other after the notification. This cannot be the intention of the legislature. The notification only clarifies the meaning and the intention of the Government and does not impose any kind of tax liability. Under The General Clauses Act, 1897, any notification issued under the specific provision of a statute continues until it is withdrawn by subsequent amendment. The insertion of Explanation (3) has set at rest that notification issued will apply from the date of the agreement and there is no ambiguity in law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Essar Oil Ltd., Mumbai vs Assessee on 15 February, 2007

Similarly, in case of W.N.S. Global Services (supra), the Tribunal was dealing with the omission of section and its operation in the succeeding years. Thus, none of these judgments are applicable on the issue of substitution of the provisions of the Act because in the present case, this section has been substituted later without any substantial change as the language of the section remains exactly the same. This does not mean that any action taken under section 90 prior to its Essar Oil Limited 37 substitution cannot be enforced at all in the year in which they were applicable. He further reiterated that Explanation (3) to section 90, which was brought in statute with retrospective effect from 1st October 2009 only reinforce the intention of the legislation that any notification issued, would be applicable from the date of agreement. There cannot be two different meaning of the phrase "may be taxed" one prior to notification and other after the notification. This cannot be the intention of the legislature. The notification only clarifies the meaning and the intention of the Government and does not impose any kind of tax liability. Under The General Clauses Act, 1897, any notification issued under the specific provision of a statute continues until it is withdrawn by subsequent amendment. The insertion of Explanation (3) has set at rest that notification issued will apply from the date of the agreement and there is no ambiguity in law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 99 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on 30 September, 2002

23. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the material available on record and the precedent cited at the Bar. As regards the nomenclature used by the assessee-company in relation to the impugned income earned by it and the character of such income, whether it is covered by the fees payable for the technical services or not, we find that this dispute is not arising from the AO's order inasmuch as the character of the same being the interest and royalty income earned by the assessee from the Malaysian party was accepted by the AO himself in para No. 10 of his order. In any case this issue stands already decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1991-92 vide its order dt. 2nd Sept., 1997 in ITA/65/Nag/1996, wherein after perusing the relevant articles of the DTAA with Malaysia as well as the agreement entered into by the assessee-company with the Malaysian firm, the Tribunal upheld the nature of the said receipts as claimed by the assessee. As regards the contention raised by the learned Departmental Representative before us, relying on the words "may be taxed" used in DTAA, that tax could be levied in India also on the income earned by the assessee from the interest and royalty, it is observed that a similar contention was raised on behalf of the Revenue before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. VR. S.R.M. Film and Ors. (supra) and their Lordships held that the same cannot be countenanced as of substance or merit and further observed that such enabling form the language has been liberally used and the same cannot be taken advantage of by the Revenue to claim for it as a right to bring to assessment the income covered by such clauses in the agreement.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 36 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Telecommunications Consultants India ... vs Assessee on 6 February, 2009

21.3 In the case of CIT vs. S.R.M. Firm & Others - 208 ITR 400, the subject matter was taxability and computation of income depending upon the agreement entered into between the Government of India and Government of Malaysia for avoidance of double taxation. Income from Rubber Estate in Malaysia and there was no separate establishment maintained in India in respect of the rubber estate in Malaysia. Thus, facts of that case are also at variance to the facts of assessee's case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Turquoise Investments And Finance Ltd. ... on 27 May, 2003

21. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. We have also gone through the relevant material on record and judgments relied on by the parties. It is well settled by now that the provisions of DTAA entered into with any county would override the provisions of Income-Tax, 1961 if they are at variance from the provisions of the Act. From plain reading of Article 11, it becomes clear that dividend income can be taxed only in the Contracting States where such dividend has been declared. We are unable to agree with Ld. DR that Clause 5 which refers to the company only will restrict the scope of Clause 1 of Article XI. Clause 5 deals with altogether different subject i.e. where income has been derived by a company from various sources, then what shall be the treatment on dividend to be paid by such company to persons non-residents in that other Contracting States. Hon'ble Madras High Court has clearly held in CIT v. V.R.S.R.M. Firm (supra) that dividend income received by an Indian assessee from Malaysia is not taxable in India as per Article XI. In view of this decision and other judgments relied on by Ld. AR, we hold that dividend income received by the assessee company is not taxable in India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 39 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Late S. Awakannu By Lr vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 March, 1997

Reference may be made to the judgments in the case of CIT vs. Visakhapatnam Port 7Yust (1984) 38 CTR (AP) 1 : (1983) 144 1TR 146 (AP) and CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm (1994) 120 CTR (Mad) 427 : (1994) 208 ITR 400 (Mad). The assessee's counsel contended that the charging section viz., s. 5 is to be considered as it was beneficial to the assessee. According to s. 5 the constituents of chargeable total income are as under.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Late S. Ayyakannu By Lr vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 March, 1997

Reference may be made to the judgments in the case of CIT vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP) and CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm (1994) 208 ITR 400 (Mad). The assessee's counsel contended that the charging section viz., s. 5 is to be considered as it was beneficial to the assessee. According to s. 5 the constituents of chargeable total income are as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ujjain vs Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd on 20 February, 2008

We have gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. SRM Firm & Ors.(supra) and judgment of this Court in CIT vs. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (supra) and we are satisfied that the point involved in these appeals stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. SRM Firm & Ors.(supra) which was duly affirmed by this Court in the case of CIT vs. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs O.R.M.S.S.S. Sevugan Chettiar on 2 November, 1998

4. Counsel for the Revenue made an oral application for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. Having regard to the fact that the questions involve the interpretation of an international treaty, the questions are of general importance and the questions involved are substantial questions of law with regard to the extent of the benefits conferred on the assessee in India in terms of that agreement, we grant the certificate sought. The questions need to be decided by the apex court. We do so also in the light of the fact that Civil Appeals Nos. 5751 to 5757 of 1997 are pending in the apex court against the decision of this court rendered in the case of CIT v. VR. S. R. M. Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - R J Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next