Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • 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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 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
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules against arbitrary tax notices, upholds treaty rights for fair taxpayer treatment</h1> <h3>Motorola Solutions India (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income -tax, Faridabad and others</h3> Motorola Solutions India (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income -tax, Faridabad and others - [2014] 364 ITR 663 (P&H) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the notices dated 25.03.2013, 26.03.2013, and 28.03.2013 issued by respondent no. 2.2. Appropriation of Rs.26,26,87,000/- from the petitioner's bank account.3. Validity and renewal of the bank guarantee.4. Adherence to the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) and the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty.5. Compliance with the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Notices:The petitioner challenged the notices issued by respondent no. 2 on the grounds that they were arbitrary and violated the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty. The notices questioned whether the MAP had been admitted, despite the Joint Secretary's affidavit confirming the pendency of MAP proceedings. The court found that the notices were issued without proper verification and that the actions of respondent no. 2 were based on an erroneous interpretation of the treaty and CBDT instructions.2. Appropriation of Rs.26,26,87,000/-:The petitioner argued that the appropriation of Rs.26,26,87,000/- from their bank account was illegal as the tax demand was already secured by a valid bank guarantee. The court noted that the revenue's action was premature and in violation of the treaty and CBDT instructions, which require suspension of tax collection during the pendency of MAP proceedings. The court directed the respondents to refund the appropriated amount, subject to the conclusion of MAP proceedings.3. Validity and Renewal of the Bank Guarantee:The petitioner contended that the bank guarantee furnished on 04.03.2009 was still valid and had been confirmed by Citi Bank on 25.03.2013. The court examined the terms of the bank guarantee, which provided for automatic renewal unless the bank notified the government 60 days prior to its expiry. The court found no evidence that such a notice was issued by the bank, and thus, the bank guarantee was deemed to have been automatically renewed. The court rejected the revenue's claim that the bank guarantee had expired on 28.02.2012.4. Adherence to MAP and the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty:The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the MAP and the treaty, which provide for suspension of tax collection during the pendency of MAP proceedings. The court criticized respondent no. 2 for drawing an artificial distinction between 'pendency' and 'admission' of MAP, which led to the wrongful appropriation of funds. The court upheld the petitioner's right to invoke MAP and directed the revenue to comply with the treaty and CBDT instructions.5. Compliance with CBDT Instructions:The court noted that the CBDT instructions, particularly Instruction No. 10/2007, mandate the suspension of tax collection during the pendency of MAP proceedings, provided a valid bank guarantee is furnished. The court found that the revenue failed to adhere to these instructions, as the bank guarantee was valid and MAP proceedings were pending. The court directed the revenue to refund the appropriated amount and comply with the CBDT instructions.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notices, and directed the respondents to refund Rs.26,26,87,000/- to the petitioner, subject to the conclusion of MAP proceedings within six months. The court emphasized the need for the revenue to adhere to international treaties and CBDT instructions, ensuring fair and consistent treatment of taxpayers invoking MAP.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found