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 BENCH:
The Assessee SMS Group Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in consonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 17.03.2022 u/s 144C(5) of the Act.
Identical issues are involved and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1591-1
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New…Delhi24 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. and 4 other authorities
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 chargeabilit...
- Sms Group Gmbh (Formerly Sms Siemag Ag)… vs ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New…Delhi9 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the consideration for drawings and designs, integral to equipment supply, was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services but as Business Profits, provided it was inextricably linked to the sale of ...
- Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs DDIT, New DelhiDelhi16 Jun 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the supply of drawings and designs was an integral part of the plant and equipment supply and not taxable as FTS in India. However, supervisory services for erection and commissioning were held to ...
- Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs DCIT (International Taxation), New DelhiDelhi21 Mar 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the supply of drawings and designs was inextricably linked to the supply of plant and equipment and could not be considered on a standalone basis. Therefore, it was not taxable as FTS in India.
- Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs ACIT, (International Taxation), Circle…Delhi6 Jan 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the receipts for supply of equipment were not taxable in India as business income. However, receipts for drawings and designs were considered FTS and taxable. For supervisory services, the issue wa...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026