Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 206C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T.,New Delhi vs M/S.Mitsui & Co.Ltd.,New Delhi on 1 March, 2016
iii) CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545 (Delhi HC);
Cit vs Sencma Sa, France on 22 March, 2006
iv) CIT v. Sencma SA, France (Delhi HC);
v) Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd v. CIT (253 ITR 745)
(Delhi HC);
vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) (Supreme
Court);
vii) ITO v. The District Collector, Amravati (ITA No.379/Nag/
2016) (Nagpur Tribunal);
Section 44AC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Wipro Ge Medical Systems Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 July, 2002
xi) Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd v. ITO (24 CCH 0001)
(Bangalore Tribunal);
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. on 14 January, 2011
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material
available on record. We find that, in this case, the Assessing Officer
has held the assessee as "assessee in default" in respect of sale
amounting to ` 54,53,414 only within the meaning of section 201(1) of
the Act and the Assessing Officer has not treated the assessee as
"assessee in default" for collection of TCS in respect of sale amounting
to ` 12,40,93,199 on the basis of confirmation filed by TAN holder
which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coco Cola (supra).
Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi vs M/S Eli Lilly & Company (India) P.Ltd on 25 March, 2009
M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
9.14 The appellant in this regard has also relied on the decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Company
(India) (P) Ltd. & ors . , (2009) 223 CTR 0020. In this case the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: