Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 101 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad on 1 October, 2008

Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs Assessee on 27 April, 2016

"If the contention of the Department that the moment there is - remittance the obligation to deduct TAS arises is to be accepted then we are obliterating the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in section 195(1). The said expression in section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. (See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asstt.Commissioner vs M/S.P.R.Ship on 1 July, 2011

In the aforesaid premises, following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation And others Vs. C.I.T., (supra), the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, that is, the Appellate Tribunal had not erred in law and on facts in allowing relief under section 80HH and section 80I of the Act to the assessee who was engaged in the business of ship breaking activity.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

M/S.Anand Transport (Private) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 2014

34.Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, made his final attempt by submitting that in view of the amendment made to Section 195 under the Finance Act, 2012, wherein Explanation has been added to Section 195(1), giving retrospective effect to the said provision from 1.4.1962, the tax had to be deducted for the payments made to JOPL. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD. Case, after referring to the VIJAY SHIP BREAKING CORPORATION Case (cited supra), held that the tax at source can be deducted only from "sums chargeable" under the provisions of the Act. The facts of the present case would disclose that the income earned by JOPL, is taxable at Singapore and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement would also come to their rescue as the income earned by the said concern, are not liable to be taxed in India and would be taxable only in Singapore. Therefore, the payment of Rs.64,57,70,890/- made to JOPL by the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee, will not come within the ambit of deduction of tax at source.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 16 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Ito, , Tuticorin vs Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, , ... on 28 February, 2017

TDS Date Amount 07.10.2002 13,547 04.12.2002 14,69,496 30.03.2005 5,00,000 22.07.2005 1,01,69,740 Total Demand as per 1,21,52,883 order dated 20.07.05 Interest u/.s201(1A) Date Amount 10.09.2005 29,99,190 Total demand as per order dated 29,99,190 11.08.05 Now we find that the said decision of the Honourable Gujarat high court relied by you and on the strength of which you passed the order going rise to Durand of WHT & Interest, has been reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation &others Vs. CIT ( and other appeals) As reported in (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ambika Recycling....Opponent(S) on 9 April, 2014

In   the   case   of  Vijay   Ship  Breaking   Corporation   and   others   vs.  Commissioner   of   Income­tax  (supra),   the  Supreme   Court   considered   a   question   where  activity   of   ship   breaking   amounted   to   manufacture and observed as under:­  Page 12 of 16 O/TAXAP/297/2010 ORDER "8.Firstly,   in   the   case   of   Ship   Scrap   Traders   Vs.   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,   reported   in   251   ITR   807,   the   Bombay   High   Court has analysed the entire ship breaking  activity,   the   articles   which   emerged   from  that activity, the various steps which are   required to be undertaken for ship breaking  activity   and,   consequently,   after   placing  reliance on the judgment of this Court in   Budharaja's case [1993] 204 ITR 412, it has   held   that   the   ship   breaking   activity   resulted   in   production   of   articles   which   emerged   when   the   ship   breaking   activity   stood   undertaken.   In   our   view,   the   important test which distinguishes the word   'production' from 'manufacture' is that the   word   'production'   is   wider   than   the   word   'manufacture' as held in Budharaja's case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A Kureshi - Full Document

M/S. Vijai Electricals Limited,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 15 October, 2014

However, this judgment of Gujarat High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation & Ors. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 309) wherein it was held the Hon'ble High Court delivered this judgment on 20th March, 2003 , the Income-Tax Act was amended on 18th September, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 1983. By reason of such amendment, Explanation 2 was added to section 10(15)(iv)(c), which reads as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prasad Productions Ltd., Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 April, 2009

In the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT (314 ITR 309), the question before the Supreme Court was whether usance interest partakes the character of purchase price and therefore TDS is not deductible. Of course, when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, the Act had been amended by adding Explanation 2 to sec.10(15)(iv)(c) exempting the said income from Indian Taxation. Nonetheless, the court did observe that since tax was not assessable in India, there was no question of TDS being deducted by the assessee. It has been argued by the department that since the TDS provisions are tentative in nature, and hence not prejudicial 48 ITA 663/03 to the interests of the payer, it is mandatory for the latter to undertake the exercise under sec.195 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Eximcorp India (P) Ltd. , Kolkata vs Acit,Cir-5(2),Kolkata. , Kolkata on 5 August, 2024

21. No doubt, the decision of the Gujarat High Court was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 179 Taxman 77/[2009] 314 ITR 309 . However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, made it clear that such reversal was only because of the amendment which entered force on September 18, 2003, but w.e.f. 1-4-1983. By reason of the said amendment, an explanation was added to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the IT Act which provided that Usance interest payable outside India by an undertaking engaged in business of ship- breaking in respect of purchase of a ship from outside India shall be deemed to be the interest payable on a debt incurred in a foreign country in respect of the purchase outside India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next