Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.52 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Wallfort Shares And Stock Brokers Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer [Alongwith I.T.A. ... on 15 July, 2005
Ltd.
v. DCIT (I.T.A. No. 3944 of 2010 dated 11th January, 2011).
According to him, in the circumstances of the case, the TPO was
justified in adopting CUP method for comparing the prices at which
assessee had purchased various items from its Associate Enterprise.
M/S Ge India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 February, 2013
In our opinion, assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source
at the time when credit was given to M/s Microsoft Corporation Inc.
No doubt, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology
Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that a person is bound to
deduct tax at source only when the sum paid is assessable to tax in
India. Here, there is no dispute that the sum paid to M/s Microsoft
Corporation Inc. was taxable in India. In such a situation, in our
opinion, contention of the assessee that only the net amount actually
paid could be considered for effecting deduction of tax at source,
cannot be accepted. Assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source
25 I.T.A. No. 2164/Mds/10
when credit entries were passed in its books based on invoices or
demands raised by M/s Microsoft Corporation Inc. In our opinion,
lower authorities were justified in applying Section 40(a)(i) of the Act,
to the extent assessee failed to make such deduction. No
interference is required.
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947
1