Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (6.33 seconds)
Pepsi Foods Private Ltd.,, Chandigarh vs Department Of Income Tax cites

Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1996

"........Moreover, looking at the issue independently, it is undisputed that, such services are not taxable in India in the light of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Bangladesh. The business of M/s. IBSL was to render market support services and accordingly, such sum was taxable as business income in the hands of M/s. IBSL. There is no material on record and none has been referred to by the Commissioner to establish that M/s. IBSL has any establishment in India and, in absence of any Permanent Establishment, services rendered by M/s. IBSL outside India are not taxable in India. This view has been upheld by the Authority For Advance Ruling in the case of Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard vs. CIT 222 ITR 551(AAR) and, also in the case of GOLF IN DUBAI, LLC (supra). In light of the above, we conclude that there is no material to support the reasoning extended by the Commissioner to hold that, income earned by M/s. IBSL from services rendered was liable for deduction of tax at source and therefore the assessee could not be held in default for non-deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act. In any case, there is no material to establish the invoking of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the facts of the instant case and therefore the Commissioner was not justified in treating the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on this ground."
Authority Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006

The assessee vide its repl y dated 19.12.2008, brought the said fact before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and stated that because of an inadvertent error, the depreciation figure was not 9 reduced while computing the taxable income for the year. The assessee also filed a statement showing allowable depreciation and WDV for each subsequent year from Assessment Year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer has not commented upon the said claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) on the perusal of the assessment records and written submissions observed that the claim of deduction by way of application could not be entertained by the Assessing Officer in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Vs. [CIT (284 ITR 323) (SC)]. The CIT(A) further observed that the issue in the case is limited to the power of Assessing Officer but does not unhinge the power of Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act and rel ying on series of decisions / judgments, held the assessee entitled to the claim of depreciation. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim after verifying from records that the depreciation in earlier years had been allowed as claimed by the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1246 - Full Document
1