Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 vs M/S. Techno Shares & Stocks Limited on 11 September, 2009
37.2 Before us, the contention of the counsel for the assessee was two fold.
Firstly, that DRP had disallowed the claim of depreciation by placing
reliance in the case of Techno Shares and Stocks case passed by the Bombay
High Court, however, the aforesaid decision has been reversed and decided in
favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Techno
Shares and Stocks Ltd. vs. CIT 193 taxman 248.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B S R & Co, Mumbai vs Acit Cir 11(2), Mumbai on 3 August, 2018
case, no technology has been "made available" to the assessee during the
course of providing of aforesaid "audit services", which is a mandate of
Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA for any services to qualify as "fee for
technical services / fee for included services" under the India-USA Tax
Treaty. In our considered view, DRP has correctly observed that looking
into the instant facts and nature of services for which payment was made by
the assessee viz. audit services, there can be no inference that any
technology was "made available" to the assessee, looking into the nature of
services availed by the assessee. Further, it is also not the allegation of the
Department that RPS, USA has a permanent establishment or fixed placed
of business in India so that the income erred by RPS USA should be taxable
under Article 7 of the India-USA Tax Treaty as business profits in India.
Further, in the case of ACIT vs. BSR and Company 70 taxmann.com 69
(Mumbai Tribunal), the ITAT held that different types of professional
services rendered to an Indian company by overseas companies outside
India in relation to audit, taxation, transfer-pricing, information technology,
background checks, etc would be independent personal services; since these
overseas companies had no fixed base or PE in India, payment made to
them would not be chargeable to tax in India.
Section 42 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Prashanti Medical Services And ... vs Union Of India on 25 July, 2019
15.2 Therefore, the present matter whether each well would constitute a
separate undertaking is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.
Further, the Supreme Court in the case of similar provision u/s. 35D in the
case of Pransati Medical Services and Resources Foundation vs. Union of
India 416 ITR 485 (SC) refused to read-down the amendment in such a
manner. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
constitutional validity of any provision and specially taxing provision cannot
be struck down on a plea based on equity or/and hardship in a taxing statute
and same is not legally sustainable.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Niko Resources Limited vs Union Of India & on 26 March, 2015
However, the above
findings made by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Niko Resources
supra have been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while admitting the
SLP in CC No. 18370 of 2015. In the aforesaid order, the Supreme Court
held as below:-