Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.44 seconds)Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Stonecraft Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 March, 1999
18. To conclude the discussion on the application of the rule
of noscitur a sociis, we think that a reference to the Supreme Court
decision in the case of Stonecraft Enterprises v. Commissioner of
Income Tax: (1999) 3 SCC 343 would be apposite. In that case the
Supreme Court was required to interpret the provisions of Section
80-HHC (2) (b) of the said Act relating to assessment years 1985-86,
1987-88 and 1988-89. In the said sub-section (2) (b) of Section 80-
HHC, it was provided that the Section did not apply to the following
goods or merchandise, namely:-
Section 44AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80O in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Skycell Communications Ltd. And Anr. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 23 February, 2001
She
submitted that in the case of Skycell (supra), the payments which
were under contemplation, were the payments by individual
subscribers to their respective cellular mobile service providers,
whereas in the present appeals, the payments in question are those
made by the cellular mobile service providers to MTNL/other
companies for interconnect/port access charges. Consequently, she
submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the
payments made to MTNL/other companies in respect of the
interconnect/port access charges were outside the purview of Section
194J of the said Act, was not correct in law.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Anr. on 17 January, 1979
[2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad), wherein the payment made by a
subscriber to the provider of cellular mobile facility was held not to
amount to fees for technical services within the meaning of Section
194J read with Section 9 (1) (vii), Explanation 2 of the said Act. It
was contended that the mere collection of a fee for use of a standard
facility provided to all those willing to pay for it does not amount to
the fee having been received for ―technical services.‖ It was also
contended that unless and until, there is an element of human
interface, the facility of interconnection/port access cannot be
regarded as a technical service. Reliance were also placed on an
earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd v
Central BVoard of Direct Taxes and Anr : (1979) 118 ITR 312,
which has considered the expression ―technical service‖ within the
ITA Nos.1120/07& Ors Page No.8 of 21
context of Section 80-O. It was contended that in the said decision,
it was pointed out that ―technical service‖ has two components. The
first is the use of tools and the second being the application of human
reason to the properties of matter and energy. It was, therefore,
contended that unless and until the element of human interface was
present, the facility provided by the MTNL/other companies could
not be regarded as a ―technical service‖.