SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the income from supervisory services should be determined based on the audited books of account, and since the audited books showed a loss, no income was taxable for that activity. The chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also addressed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a German company, supplied equipment, designs, and supervisory services to Indian customers. The Assessing Officer (AO) sought to tax certain offshore supplies and onshore services, while the assessee offered some technical services and supervisory services for taxation. The dispute centered on the taxability of offshore supplies and the attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
What were the issues?
The key issues were whether offshore supplies of equipment and designs were taxable in India and how to compute the profits attributable to the Permanent Establishment for supervisory services, particularly when the audited books showed a loss.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 5(2),Section 9(1)(i),Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.814 citing198 ITR 297 · 1992 · SC · Read judgment
- Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT394 citing288 ITR 408 · 2007 · SC
- CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.166 citing291 ITR 482 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd.91 citing243 ITR 459 · 2000 · HC
- CIT v. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building32 citing174 CTR 66 · HC
- AEG Aktiengesellschaft v. CIT29 citing267 ITR 209 · 2004 · HC
- CIT v. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building Co. Ltd.29 citing259 ITR 248 · 2003 · HC
- CIT v. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd.25 citing373 ITR 207 · 2015
- CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd.23 citing229 ITR 735 · 1988 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
per audited books of account, no income is to be brought to tax thereon own qua this activity. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Ground No. 8 raised by the assessee is challenging the chargeability of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act, the law is very well settled that same shall be charged only on the returned income and not on the assessed income.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in for AY 2021-22 is Partly allowed. for AY 2022-23 (assessee’s appeal)
Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 8 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
Ground No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 raised by the assessee for AY 2022-23, identical to Ground Nos. 3 to 6 and 8 raised by the assessee for assessment 2017-18. Hence, the decision rendered by us thereon for AY 2017-18 supra shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2022-23 also in view of identical facts, except with variance in figures.
Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is challenging the chargeability of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act, the law is very well settled that same shall be charged only on the returned income and not on the assessed income.
-1592/Del/2 MS Group Gmbh
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in for AY 2022-23.
To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2025.
More judgments on Section 144C
- Mishoo Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 19/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 18/KOL/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2016-2017
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 17/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 16/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-2015
- Anshu Sahay, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, KolkataITTPA 15/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026