Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs C.I.T. Bombay on 25 October, 1954
• Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs CIT [1954]26ITR 736 (SC)
In this case, the assessee had filed a special
leave petition before the Supreme Court ("SC")
which allowed the appeal of the assessee and
observed as follows:
Narayan Chandra Baidya vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 4 June, 1951
• Narayan Chandra Baidya vs CIT [1951] 20
ITR 287 (Cal)
In this case, the High Court ("HC") held in
favour of the assessee and observed as follows:
D. S. Bist & Sons, Nainital vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi ... on 3 November, 1978
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the
Delhi High Court in the case of D. S. Bist & Sons vs.
CIT Delhi (Central) [1984]149 ITR 276 (Del).
Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mc Donald'S India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 March, 2015
"Examined the rival submissions. The short question of
law to be adjudicated here as to whether the appellant
has PE in India within the meaning of para 7(a) and
para 7(c) of Article 5 of Indo Japan treaty (DTAA).
Either side has given its argument which has been
placed above in verbatim. The fact remains in the
instant case that the appellant did not supply any
document before the Revenue to prove that enquiries,
proposals from the customers were received by it.
Whether such act of appellant would ipso facto
indicate that no such enquiries or proposals were
performed is also to be decided but there is no shred
of doubt that the appellant has grossly failed to
discharge its onus which has been placed on it by the
9
ITA NO. 3005/Del/2011
statute itself. The Ld AO has brought on record that
regarding the claim of the appellant that the
consultant /contractor represent several price and are
in contact with the appellant could not be verified as
not a single documentary evidence in this respect was
filed before the Revenue in spite of specific requisition.
The AO has also come to the conclusion from the
material evidence that business meeting will not be
only for the purpose of direct sales by the appellant
but also through the DAIPL. In absence of any such
document the Revenue was constrained to conclude
that DAIPL secured orders in India for the appellant,
the appellant is the controlling authority for DAIPL and
DAIPL also negotiates and finalizes the prices with the
customers of the appellant in India. The authority for
such act although not vested in them through any
agreement but in all practical purposes they were
deciding the prices and such prices later on confirmed
by the appellant through document at a routine
manner. It has been decisively held by a five member
bench of Supreme Court in the case of Mc Donald v.
CIT 154 ITR 148 (5C) that any colourable device to
evade the tax would not exonerate the assessee from
the ambit of taxation statute. Although no agreement
was signed between the appellant and DAIPL in this
regard but in reality the prices decided by DAIPL have
been confirmed by the appellant and the Ld. AO has
10
ITA NO. 3005/Del/2011
rightly pierced through the veil to find the actual fact
and such fact cannot be faulted.
1