|
Particulars |
Analysis | Judgment |
| NSG Network Asia LLC | In context of liability to pay advance tax by payee-assessee on payment subject to tax withholding u/s 195, in consequence of failure to deduct tax, BHC after considering the matter at length, has upheld underlying ITAT order concluding no liability for advance tax on payee assessee for payment on which tax is deductible (albeit not deducted), placing reliance on Utt. HC ruling in SEDCO case 264 ITR 320. In underlying order and from question posited before BHC, it is clear that ITAT placed reliance on Del ITAT Special Bench ruling in Motorola case at 95 ITD 269. In context of tax withholding, landmark SC development in L&T and ITI cases, holding that employer tax deductor u/s 192 while taking declaration from employee payee over leave travel concession etc, is not bound to examine the evidence thereof, may also be usefully referred to. | (Click Here) |
| DBS Limited | In context of allowability of Expatriate Salaries u/s 37 of the Act, BHC while affirming underlying ITAT order, concluded that expenditure was incurred in India duly subject to tax withholding in India. In holding so, BHC placed reliance on its earlier ruling in the case of Emirates Commercial 262 ITR 55 | (Click Here) |
| Om parkash Jain and Others | In context of addition made in consequence of surrender and subsequent retraction, BHC while reversing underlying ITAT order and remanding the matter back to AO, concluded that while relying on retraction, genuineness of documents lead in support thereof must be examined and documentary evidence, if genuine, must prevail over oral testimony. Further, BHC replaced the specific direction of ITAT by general discretion to AO. | (Click Here) |
| Monika Gems and Others | In context of allowability of foreign travel expenses in Gems Industry, BHC while allowing assessee's appeals, revered the ITAT finding wherein it was concluded that subject expense is neither allowable and nor disallowable. In connection to this ITAT finding, BHC held the same to be vitiated by non application of mind. | (Click Here) |
| Lata Shanti lal Shah, | In context of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, BHC concluded that explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) pointing deemed concealment in specified cases cannot be invoked for first time before HC by revenue, when the same is not pressed before lower authorities. | (Click Here) |
CAclubindia
