Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 74 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
2. At the very outset we noticed that there was delay of
filing 8 days in filing the appeal before us . Considering the
entire factual position as explained before us and also
keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition,
3 ITA No.8458/Mum/2025
Citigroup Global Mar kets
Mauritus Private Li mi ted
Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC)
wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is
pitted against the technicalities of non-deliberate delay
then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be
preferred. In our view, the principle of advancing
substantial justice is of prime importance, hence,
considering the explanation put forth by the assessee by
justifiably and properly explaining the delay which
occurred in filing the appeal and considering the
expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to
condone the delay in filing the appeal before us.
Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is
admitted to be heard on ground of merits.
C.I.T-Ii Pune vs M/S Patni Computer System Ltd. on 17 October, 2014
10 in the present case, there was no dispute that the Assesses
was entilled to claim the benef it of exemption from tax in Indie
granted by Article 13(4) of the DTAA in respect of Short/f Long
Term Capital Gains arising during the relevant previous year. The
contention of the Revenue was that the aforesaid benef t of Article
13(4) of DTAA coold only be claimed in respect of net balance
Shortitong Term Capital Gains af ter setting off Brought Forward
ShortLong Term Capital Gains in terms of section 74 of the Act. The
Tribunal had, in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments
(Mauntius) Ltd (supra), rejected the aforesaid contention of the
Revenue holding that the Assessee was entitled to claim benef it of
Article 13/4) of DTAA in respect of the entire cument year
Short/Long Term Capital Gains (without s etting of the Brought
Forward ShortLong Term Capital Gains) The Tribunal also
permitted cecry forward of the Brought Forward Short/Long Term
Capital Gaina to the subsequent assessment years holding that
the Short/Long Term Capital Loss permitted to be carr ied forward
in a previous assessment could not be reviewed in the assessment
proceedings of e subsequent assessment year.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Patni Computers Systems Ltd. on 29 June, 2007
Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd [2023] (146
taxmann.com 203) dated 7 October 2022 (Refer page 43 to 48
of legal Paperbook)
"9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record. We note that the Assessee had made detailed
submission before the CIT(A) which have been reproduced by the
CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of the order impugned. The Assessee had
placed reliance of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of
Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), Dy. CIT v.
Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune) and
Flagship Indian Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010]
38 SOT 426/133 TTJ 792 (Mum).