Section 194H – Notice issued in SLP filed against HC ruling that where assessee company engaged in providing laboratory and testing services to customers through its own and through third party collection centres had allowed certain discount to its collection centres, since assessee did not perform any act of paying but was only receiving payments from these collection centres, there was no obligation on assessee to deduct tax at source u/s 194H on discount so allowed.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Super Religare Laboratories Ltd. – [2022] 141 taxmann.com 478 (SC).
Business could be said to have been set up from date when one of categories of business activity was started.
RBL Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT – [2022] 141 taxmann.com 457 (Chennai-Trib.).
Agency PE – Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned order of HC ruling that where Indian distributor of assessee obtained right of distribution of channel for itself and entered into contracts with other parties in its own name in which assessee was not a party, Indian distributor did not constitute an agency PE of assessee.
Commissioner of Income-tax (IT) v. Taj TV Ltd. – [2022] 141 taxmann.com 450 (SC).
Filing of revised return is not required to correct the error of quoting wrong section in ITR in respect of deduction claim.
Income-tax Officer, International Taxation Word 3(1)(1) v. Armine Hamied Khan – [2022] 142 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai-Trib.).
Sec. 37(1) – Notice was issued in SLP filed against HC order that where assessee company had claimed certain amount of business expenditure u/s 37(1) during original assessment proceedings during scrutiny assessment had filed revised computation of income claiming further losses, since assessee had not claimed any additional deductions or exemptions or made a fresh claim, such claim of expenditure made through revised computation should be considered by Assessing Officer on merit.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Perlo Telecommunication and Electronic Components India (P) Ltd. – [2022] 141 taxmann.com 388 (SC).
Reassessment notice issued for wrong AY cannot be corrected by issuing letter of corrigendum.
Infineon Technologies AG v. DCIT – [2022] 141 taxmann.com 288 (Karnataka).