Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)

Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018

08. While deciding the above said issue, the CIT(A) shall also take into account the terms and conditions as mentioned in the licence agreement, the provisions of the TRAI Act, the submissions of ld DR (para3-4 supra) and also the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar [(2018) 9 SCC 1, at para 40 to 45] and also the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Pr CIT vs. M/s. Aarham Softronics (C A No.1784/ 2019) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Macquarie bank v. Shilpi Cable Technology (CA No.15135 of 2017, dt.15.12.2017).
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 2183 - N V Ramana - Full Document

The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(1), ... vs Smt Jayalakshmi N Gowda , Bangalore on 8 August, 2018

5.7. Though the ITAT order was with reference to telecommunication services through satellite or earth station, the ratio of the judgement is equally applicable to the facts of this appeal. I also note that the Chennai ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Smt. A Jayalakshmi has found that "where an assessee was carrying on a purely commercial function which had nothing to do with development of telecom infrastructure", such activities cannot qualify for the deduction u/s 801A.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1