DDIT (I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. REUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5024/MUM/2004Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 July 2022AY 1998-199919 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of DAPE existence was academic as profit attribution to it was not in dispute and the payment of arm's length remuneration was not contested. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed in limited terms regarding profit attribution.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a UK-based company, provided news and financial information products to its Indian subsidiary, Reuters India. The Assessing Officer treated payments from Reuters India to the assessee as royalty, while the CIT(A) deleted taxability of certain payments as royalty but held the assessee had a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) in India.

What were the issues?

Whether payments received by the assessee from its Indian subsidiary constitute royalty or business income, and whether the assessee has a permanent establishment in India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 9(1)(vi),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 195,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI

Per Pramod Kumar VP

1.

The

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vi)

All 1,705 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →