NEXT GEN FILMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS (4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3782/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 August 2020AY 2011-1225 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the UK entity acted as an independent contractor and not a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Therefore, no income could be deemed to have accrued to the UK entity in India.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a resident corporate entity, entered into a commissioning agreement with a UK-based non-resident entity to produce a feature film. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the assessee as in default for not deducting tax at source on payments made to the UK entity.

What were the issues?

Whether the UK entity constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India, and whether the assessee was in default for not deducting TDS on payments made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 195

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri H.S. Raheja & Mani Jain-Ld. ARs
For Respondent: Shri Avneesh Tiwari & Shri V.Vinod

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.3782/Mum/2016
I.T.A. No.3783/Mum/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2.

-83/Mum/2016 M/s Next Gen Films Private Limited Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →