Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2010 2010 2010 (8) Income Tax - 2010 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 321 to 325 of 325 Records

• 2010 (8) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – deliberate attempt to reduce statutory liability – wrong claim of deduction of expenditure related to exempted income – failure to apply provisions of section 14A - It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one’s income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271 (1)(c).

  ---

• 2010 (8) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Unexplained Investment - surrender of excess stock and excess scrap amounting to Rs. 75, 00,000/- during survey operation u/s 133A - This amount was added by the AO as unexplained investment in stock under Section 68 of the Act 1961 as this amount was neither added as the surrendered amount to the total income nor was mentioned in the audit report. However, the respondent assessee contended that at the time of survey operation under Section 133A, administrative, financial and other expenses were not considered and excess stock and scrap was eventually duly recorded in the books of accounts. Respondent-assessee further contended that sale of such stock and scrap was also recorded during the regular course of business after the survey operation. – Held that: - as the assessee had produced each and every invoice in respect of goods sold and produced quantity wise details of unsold stock as well as surrendered stock vis-a-vis stock sold before the end of the year duly supported by documents, it is not correct to allege that stock surrendered was not reflected in the books of account. In our opinion, the stock sold after the date of survey and the sales proceeds were duly credited in the accounts without claiming set off of its cost resulting in higher profits. Consequently the addition made by the AO cannot be retained.

  ---

• 2010 (8) TMI 11 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  Supply of software -supply of software license - installation and commissioning of software - upgradation, maintenance and support of the software - fee for technical services (FTS) - Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) - Held that: - . In the definition of royalty under the Act, the phrase "including the granting of a licence" is found. That does not mean that even a non-exclusive licence permitting user for in-house purpose would be covered by that expression. - Apparently, grant of 'licence' has been referred to in the definition to dispel the possible controversy a licence - whatever be its nature, can be characterized as transfer. - as the law now stands, the owner need not necessarily grant licence for mere reproduction or adaptation of work for one's own use. Even without such licence, the buyer of product cannot be said to have infringed the owner's copyright. When the infringement is ruled out, it would be difficult to reach the conclusion that the buyer /licensee of product has acquired a copyright therein." - whether copyright has been transferred or not is the line of inquiry which should precede the application of clause (v). It is, however, not necessary to consider the implications of Section 115A in detail, having regard to the clear provision in Tax Treaty. It is well settled that an assessee can seek the benefit of Tax Treaty (DTAA) irrespective of the provisions in domestic law. - It may be noted that in AAI case (2010 -TMI - 75810 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS), customization of software was involved and moreover the software had to be modified and adapted as per the requirements at the site. None of these features are present in the instant case - the amount payable under SLTC contract to the applicant does not amount to 'royalty' within the meaning of Article 12.4 of DTAA (Tax Treaty) between India and The Netherlands, nor can it be treated as 'fees for technical services'

  ---

• 2010 (8) TMI 9 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  Accreditation function - Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB's) - Nature of service - Fees for technical services (FTS) - Section 9(1)(vii) - Sections 115A(1)(b)(AA) or (BB) 115A(1)(b)(AA) or (BB) - TDS - DTAA with Australia - Held that: - there is no transfer of any skills or technical knowledge or experience, or process or know-how to the CABs on account of grant of accreditation to those entities. The skills, expertise or know-how possessed by the applicant for the grant of accreditation certificate cannot be said to have been made available to the CAB who gets the accreditation. What the applicant does is to evaluate and assess the capabilities, competence, potential and infrastructure possessed by the CAB in the light of certain set standards and parameters. - The fact that the CAB is apprised of its shortcomings and deficiencies, if any, and that the CAB is given an opportunity to rectify, if possible, does not reasonably lead to the inference of 'making available' the skills, technical knowledge etc. possessed by the applicant to the CAB. CAB will, of course, be benefited by the accreditation certificate issued by the applicant but that fact has hardly any bearing on the point whether "make available" criterion has been satisfied or not. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the applicant is imparting any knowledge or skills to the CABs which are utilized by the CAB in conducting its business. - The activities of the application are not falling under FTS - Since there is no PE in India, such profits can not be subject to tax in India - No withholding tax in India

  ---

• 2010 (8) TMI 8 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  Service Agreement - Fees for technical services - cost plus method consideration - actual cost incurred plus a markup of 5% - various services such as Business Line Support, Reinsurance, Direct channel, claims, single actuarial organization and IT support services - DTAA - India-Singapore Treaty - Held that: - payments made to AXA ARC does not amount to 'fee for technical services' and 'royalty' within the meaning of Article 12 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty. - There is no PE in India and payments received by it can not be taxes as business profits

  ---

1 ....1314151617