Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 24 April, 2024
cites
Section 35 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the
Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was justified in allowing the claim of the
ITA Nos. 109-113 & 116-118/Ahd/2020
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd
AY : 2005-06 to 2009-10 & 2011-12
31
assessee u/s 35(2AB) of the Act without appreciating that exemption provision
is subject to strict interpretation and when there is ambiguity the benefit of
such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be
interpreted in favour of the revenue (Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3327
of 2007, in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip
Kumar & Company & Others)."
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 5 September, 2019
Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2023] 155 taxmann.com 56 (Ahmedabad Trib.).
The ld. DR fairly agreed with the same.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Union Of India vs M/S Exide Industries Ltd. on 24 April, 2020
30. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Exide Industries Ltd., [2020] 425
ITR 1 (SC), has decided the issue against the assessee ruling that the leave
encashment will be allowed as deduction only on payment of the same in
terms of provision of Section 43B of the Act.
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 vs M/S.Redington (India) Limited on 10 December, 2020
39. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue has been
decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case
of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Chennai Vs. Redington (India)
Ltd., [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Madras), categorically holding the provision of
guarantees to be in the nature of international transactions and adjustment
being necessitated for guarantee commission therefore. In view of the same,
we see no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the
addition made to the Arm's Length Price of Corporate Guarantee amounting
to Rs.39,48,000/-.
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 April, 2018
38. In the first round, the issue was restored back by the ITAT to the
Assessing Officer to be decided in the light of decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court which was seized with an identical issue in the case
of Micro Inks Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 507 of 2016. During the pendency of
the matter before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A), the decision of the
Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Micro Inks Ltd (supra) was
noted to be still pending. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the adjustment
made by the TPO to the international transaction of corporate guarantee
amounting to Rs.39,48,000/- keeping the interest of Revenue in mind.