Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)The Coinage Act, 2011
Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Air France on 13 April, 2009
While holding that 194H provisions are applicable to assessee
company, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that it is following its
decision of CIT Vs Singapore Airlines Limited 224 CTR 168
8
ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/Mds2011
(Del.).
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvii vs Idea Cellular Ltd. on 19 February, 2010
It was not explained how the same payment in earlier year is
commission and subsequent year it is discount. Further we
are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel
for the assessee that no income has been accrued to the
assessee at the time of purchase of recharge coupons. Under
12
ITA Nos.1560 & 1561/Mds2011
very similar set of facts the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has
considered the issue in the case of CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.
Panipat Woollen And General Mills Co. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 January, 1970
(h) The assessee company has also argued that from this
Assessment Year onwards, they have changed their
accounting system and. not deducting tax as per section
194H. Now, it is a settled law and accounting entries in the
books of account of assessee cannot alter the legal position
nor can override the statutory provisions as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases reported Commissioner of
lncome-tax Vs Panipet Woollen & General Mills Co.
Limited [103 ITR 66(SC)] and Sutlej Coton Mills Limited
Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [116 ITR l(SC)]. As long as
the law is not changed, the same procedure as per law but
not as per books of account is to be followed by assesee
company.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 201 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Delhi Milk Scheme vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Deputy ... on 4 March, 2008
In this
context, I rely on Delhi Milk Scheme Vs ITO 300 ITR 373(Del.)
where the consideration was paid to its agents for selling milk
through booths and claimed it as "discounted sale", but Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi has held it to be "commission" as defined in
section 194H relying on explanation 1 of section 194H. It is quite
usual for assessees to claim the amount as "discount" and not as
"commission", even though it is commission only to come out of
section 194H of the LT. Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 June, 2002
(e) The assessee company in its written submissions relied on the
decision of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association Vs Union of
India 257 ITR 202 to support his argument of non-deduction of tax.