Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Asstt. Cit vs Niit Ltd. on 31 October, 2007
19. From the above decision, we observed that the Hon'ble High Court
allowed the claim of the assessee where the assessee shared the revenue
with the franchise partner on account of composite services provided by
the franchisee. Based on the above observation, Hon'ble High Court held
that it was not the hire of the premises provided by the assessee.
Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that the provisions of section
24
ITA No.4414/DEL/2017
194-I is not applicable. In that case, the franchise agreement was entered
by the assessee with education centres at various metro cities. The issue
involved in this case is only sharing of revenue. In the present case, we
observed that the issue involved no doubt relating to sharing of revenue
only and the assessee has shared the surplus with the collaborator and it is
not fall under any expenditure covered u/s 30 to 37 or section 40(a)(ia) of
the Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co., P., Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... on 17 September, 1980
1.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Uttam Singh
Duggal& Co. (P) Ltd Vs CIT (1981) 127 ITR 21 (Delhi) held that
an amount received in advance converts into an income only when
the work corresponding to the amounts received in advance is
actually done. In the said case work against the advance received
earlier was done in subsequent two years and it was held that the
advance receipts proportionate to work done in subsequent years
is income by way of accrual only in those succeeding years.
1.4 The receipts should be viewed as an advance against sales to be
made in a defined period of twelve months. In commercial trading
parlance at the time of entering into a contract with a client, the
appellant agrees to sell its ready stock by way of pre- defined
sittings for various health care activities. Thus, the sales value of
each sitting is well known in advance. The unsold stock which may
be called as pending sittings on the cut off date has to be equated
as inventory of the same as on the said. date. Therefore, at the end
of each financial year an inventory of unexecuted services by way
of stock ready but not sold is drawn and is termed as Unexecuted
Packages (LEP) and is carried forward to the next year when the
same is considered as income as the UEP services are utilized
then or the period to provide such services expires.
1.5 In mercantile method of accounting while computing the business
income all inbuilt liabilities against the receipts have to be
deducted because incurrence of the said liability is an inevitable
precondition to earn the profits. Such a liability of not precisely
quantifiable at the particular time then a fair estimate of the same
has to be made deducted while computing the said income.
Presuming but not admitting, that the amount received in advance
is income of the year of receipt then admittedly the assessee has to
provide services against the same in the subsequent year and the
cost for such series on the particular date has to be estimated and
deducted who considering the receipt as taxable income and in
absence of the same no correct profits can be determined as per
accepted accounting principles.
J.C.I.T., Spl. Range-14 vs National Agriculture Co-Operative ... on 28 June, 2004
CIT Vs National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing
Federation of India Ltd. (1999) 105 Taxman 586/236 ITR 766
(Delhi)
The law is well settled that where the language is plain, it can
neither be stretched wider nor squeezed narrowly with an eye of
assumed or implied intention of the Legislature. In a fiscal law
much scope for interpretative process is not available if the
language of an enactment permits of no ambiguity.
Addl.Cit, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs Statestreet Hcl ... on 2 November, 2021
CIT Vs IIT Limited HC Delhi
10
ITA No.4414/DEL/2017
The Delhi High Court in case of N Limited has clearly held that
sharing of the profits is not liable to TDS A copy of the judgment is
also attached herewith for your reference.
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 28 January, 2020
It is further submitted that the assessee took an opinion from
M/s Vaish Associates regarding the deduction of tax at source
on the payments made to Collaborators I Joint Venture Partners
under the Infrastructure Facility Management Agreement
wherein the Professionals opined on the facts of the case that no
tax is to be deducted at source on such payments. While
framing such opinion, the professionals relied upon the decision
of ACIT Vs NIIT Ltd. 112 TTJ 800 which has been approved
by the jurisdictional High Court as explained above. A copy of
the said opinion is enclosed.