SHELL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INERNATIONAL BV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, following its earlier order in the assessee's own case, held that the receipts were not taxable as fees for technical services or equipment royalty, as they did not meet the 'make available' clause of the treaty.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were decided, and a corrigendum was issued to rectify a typographical error in paragraph 9 of the original order. The error related to the exclusion of equipment royalty from taxation.
What were the issues?
Whether receipts constituted fees for technical services or equipment royalty under the treaty, and if they met the 'make available' clause.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I”, BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R The above mentioned Income Tax Appeals were decided vide order dated 24/10/2018. The findings in paragraph No.9 of the order reads as under: ”As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case, we do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for treating the receipt as fees for technical services despite the concept of „make available‟ clause contained in article 13(4)(c) of the treaty. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition so made.”
The aforesaid paragraph has an inadvertent typographical error which is rectified U/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inasmuch as there is no reference to non-taxability of the amount as equipment royalty although the same is referred to in the extracted order of the earlier year. The mistake is apparent on record. After the rectification, the relevant para No. 9 of the order shall now be read as under:-
2 & 2193/Mum/2017 M/s. Shell Information Technology International BV Vs DCIT (IT) ”As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case, we do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for treating the receipt as fees for technical services despite the concept of „make available‟ clause contained in article 13(4)(c) of the treaty or as equipment royalty. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition so made and Ground No. 5, 6 and 7 of the appeals are allowed.” Except the above, there is no change in the Tribunal order.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026