Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd.,Singapore vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 6 November, 2025 cites

Union Of India And Anr vs Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr on 7 October, 2003

o The above documents (TRCs, FPI certificate, ACRA filings) were part of the paper book before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the writ proceedings. The High Court order (13.03.2024, Annexure A) expressly noted these submissions, and the Department did not dispute them. o PB Reference: PB-5 (Consolidated), p.1-5 These materials, when placed before the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court, have never been challenged or impeached at any stage of proceedings. Thus, by settled judicial authority, a valid TRC issued by the competent authority of the contracting State is sufficient evidence of residence for DTAA purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [(2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)] held that once a TRC is produced, treaty entitlement follows as a matter of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 747 - Full Document

Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960

21. As per the provisions, the AO gets the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings u/s section 147 of the Act only upon recording the proper reason for initiating the proceedings. In this case, the AO had issued the notice based on list of non-filers and formed an opinion that the income escapement. Particularly, in our view, when he is aware that the assessee is a foreign entity, he should have initiated the investigation before forming an opinion. It is fact on record that the TRCs, SEBI-FPI status, 32 ITA Nos.3632 & 3633/DEL/2025 withholding tax certificate, board resolutions, Singapore tax records, and other statutory filings and documentary evidence submitted and accepted by the Income Tax Department and other Revenue Authorities, it establish that both Argos and its parent company are Singapore residents, and its place of effective management is also in Singapore. Section 90(2) of the Act mandates that a DTAA "shall prevail" over domestic law unless POEM or Section 6 of the Act override treaty concessions. In the given case, no such findings were recorded by the AO before initiating the reassessment proceedings, which is relevant to get the jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings. Further, we observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd (supra) and in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd (supra) have placed jurisdictional safeguards to ensure the extraordinary power of reopening is exercised when the AO has tangible materials in his possession and recorded proper satisfaction which is clear, specific before initiation of proceedings and even before the issue of notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1681 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976

Further, as held in the case of Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra), the AO must hold a Bonafide reason to believe that it is based on a live causal nexus between the tangible material in possession and alleged escapement of income. In the present case, the AO is aware of the fact that the assessee is nonresident company and the funds were transferred 33 ITA Nos.3632 & 3633/DEL/2025 thru the legal channel and also came to know about the source of source was from the non-resident parent company, without there being proper reasons and material, he has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 885 - H R Khanna - Full Document

S N Enterprises vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. on 27 September, 2022

The notices dated March 2021 (qua A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2017-18) are shown on the portal but were actually served on 25 June 2021. As held by the Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO, (2022) 449 ITR 517, a notice uploaded to the ITBA portal is not deemed "issued" at the time of generation but only when it is viewed or served in fact. The portal timestamp is therefore not determinative.
Delhi High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 7 - M P Arora - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited on 25 July, 2019

It is a trite law that once a company is dissolved, it ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Any assessment or demand order passed thereafter in the name of such a non-existent entity is a nullity. This principle stands settled by it is a trite law that once a company is dissolved or amalgamated, it 28 ITA Nos.3632 & 3633/DEL/2025 ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Any assessment or demand order passed thereafter in the name of such a non-existent entity is a nullity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC)] categorically held that framing of an assessment in the name of a non-existent amalgamating company is void ab initio and not a mere procedural irregularity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 93 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1