Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.60 seconds)Section 44AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 191 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rishikesh Apartments Co-Operative ... on 14 June, 2001
For these contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in CIT v. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 310 (Guj), Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2000) 68 TTJ (Bom) 220 : (2000) 74 ITD 369 (Bom) and Asstt. CIT v. Dwarkadas Ghasiram (HUF) (1995) 53 TTJ (Ind) 20.
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 6 June, 2000
For these contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in CIT v. Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 310 (Guj), Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2000) 68 TTJ (Bom) 220 : (2000) 74 ITD 369 (Bom) and Asstt. CIT v. Dwarkadas Ghasiram (HUF) (1995) 53 TTJ (Ind) 20.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co., Ltd on 13 January, 1966
In support of these contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in CIT v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 823 (Bom), 69 ITR 95 (Bom)(sic), CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 492 (sic-493) (Cal), CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 1014 (Del), Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. Dy. CIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Del) 670 : (2000) 72 ITD 415 (Del), Chifford Chance, United Kingdom v. Dy. CIT (2002) 76 TTJ (Mumbai) 725 : (2002) 82 ITD 106 (Mumbai) and the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling in Danfoss Industries (P) Ltd., In re (2004) 138 Taxman 280 (AAR). The alternative contention of the learned counsel was that as per the Explanation inserted w.e.f. 1st June, 2003, to Section 191 of the Act, the deductor could be called upon to pay the tax only if the deductee had not paid the tax on the income received by him. In the instant case, the payee was, of course, IHC who had shown it as income in its accounts. But that would have netted out as IHC had paid the salaries to the deputed employees from which tax was deducted. Thus, ultimately the tax on the payment made by the assessee was paid to the Government treasury and hence, there was no question of paying the tax for the second time on the same income.