Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 25 June, 2025

DRP is that amendment in the provisions of Section 145A of the Act brought by Finance Act 2018, since it includes "services" within its code therefore, income has to be computed in accordance with Section 145A and any taxes levied under services is included and for that heavy reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However the Hon'ble Court held that Section 145A restricts its ambit only to valuation of purchase and sale of goods in inventory and would not apply to service tax billed on rendering of service as service tax billed has no relation to any goods nor does it have anything to do with bringing goods to a particular location. Section 145A which is for the method of accounting which starts with' for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of 10 ITA No.2129/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 business or profession', being a general provision, would not apply to the special provisions of Section 44B of the Act. Further, the words "For the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business for profession...." in section 145A signifies that the essence of section is to compute income under the head profits and gains of business or profession which is computed as per provisions of Section 29 of the Act. On the contrary, provisions of Section 44B (1) starts with a non obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43A....". Since Section 44B overrides the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, therefore in our opinion Section 145A is not applicable for computing deemed income under Section 44B.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Chenani Nashri Tunnelway Limited, ... on 29 September, 2025

9. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (supra), decisions of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd., (supra) and Pr.CIT vs. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1174/2018 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Limited in ITA No. 3669/Mum/2016 and ITA No. 6696/Mum/2017 for AY. 2012-13. It was submitted that the ratio of all these decisions is that interest income earned on deposits which is inextricably linked to the project should not be taxed as income from other sources and, therefore, following the same, the sum of Rs. 3,44,38,900/- should not be taxed under the head „income 9 ITA No. 4686/Mum/2025 from other sources‟ as the same has to be reduced from capital work-in- progress. He accordingly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the appeal of the Revenue may thus be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited ... vs Dcit (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai on 19 January, 2026

25. Thus, reliance placed by the Hon'ble DRP members in the case of Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra) to treat 'GST similar as 'reimbursement of mobilization charges is misplaced and incorrect In the case of Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra) fixed mobilization charges were agreed between the parties, which could be more or less than the actual expenditure. Thus, 'reimbursement of mobilization charges' cannot be equated with pure reimbursement which has no element of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1