Loading ITAT cases…
96 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for interconnectivity utility charges cannot be considered as royalty taxable in India, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee has no permanent establishment in India and the income constitutes business profits taxable in the country of residence.
The Tribunal held that payments received by the assessee towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers/end-users cannot be considered as royalty to be brought to tax in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per the DTAA. The Tribunal followed the decision in M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (supra) and its own reasoning that the payments amount to business profits taxable in the assessee's resident country, not in India, as there was no permanent establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal noted that the non-resident service providers did not have any presence in India. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis, stating that an assessee is not obliged to do the impossible, especially concerning amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) inserted after the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal found that the tax authorities in India had no jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. Consequently, the grounds on merit were allowed in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not provide evidence that the assessee was put to notice or that the services rendered by the employee to LIPL were verified to establish a Service PE. The Tribunal analyzed Article 5(2)(i) of the India-UAE DTAA, which defines a Service PE as requiring the furnishing of services, including consultancy, through employees or other personnel in the other contracting state, provided such activities continue for an aggregate period of more than 9 months within any twelve-month period. The Tribunal found that while it was undisputed that the employee provided services and there was no agreement, the basis, nature, and manner of services rendered, supported by evidence, communications, and compliances, were not brought on record. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(A) to verify these facts against the requirements of Article 5(2)(i) of the DTAA and decide the claim accordingly, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that only investments yielding non-taxable income should be considered for calculating disallowance under Section 14A, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the primary activity of the trust was charitable, and the microfinance activity was ancillary to its charitable objects of poverty alleviation. The interest charged was to cover administrative costs and potential defaults, not for profit. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for interconnectivity utility charges cannot be considered as royalty taxable in India, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee has no permanent establishment in India and the income constitutes business profits taxable in the country of residence.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds related to the comparability analysis. Regarding the exclusion of companies like Great Software Laboratory Private Limited, Elveego Circuits Private Limited, and Infobeans Technologies Limited, the Tribunal respectfully followed a coordinate bench's decision in NTS Technology Services Private Limited, directing their exclusion as functionally different. For Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found it comparable, rejecting the assessee's plea for exclusion. Concerning the inclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd., Orangescape Technologies Ltd., CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., E-Zest Solutions Ltd., and Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that while the first four were considered by the assessee but rejected by the TPO, and the DRP did not address this, Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was covered by a coordinate bench decision in MWYN Technologies Pvt. Ltd. as functionally comparable. Given that other issues were being remitted, this issue was also remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration in light of the MWYN Technologies decision. Regarding working capital adjustment, following decisions in Huawei Technologies India (P) Ltd. and Altimetrix India Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to allow appropriate working capital adjustment, subject to the assessee producing necessary documents. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the compensation payment was made in the relevant assessment year, not a prior one as held by the CIT(A). The compensation arose from business expediency due to delay in project delivery.
The Tribunal held that the debit balance in the assessee's account with the company was in the nature of a loan and covered by Section 2(22)(e). However, the quantum of deemed dividend could not exceed the accumulated profits of the company.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings for one limb of section 271(1)(c) (furnishing inaccurate particulars) and levying penalty for another limb (concealment of income) is illegal and violates principles of natural justice. The penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order upholding it were quashed.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings for one limb of section 271(1)(c) (furnishing inaccurate particulars) and levying penalty for another limb (concealment of income) is illegal and violates principles of natural justice. The penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order upholding it were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee from Vodafone for interconnectivity services is not chargeable to tax in India as 'Royalty'. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. The High Court had ruled that payments made to non-resident telecommunication operators for providing interconnectivity services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries are not taxable as 'royalty' in India. Furthermore, the High Court held that such income does not accrue or arise in India in the hands of non-resident telecommunication operators like the assessee, especially when the services and equipment are situated outside India and the non-resident entity has no permanent establishment in India. Consequently, the Tax authorities in India lack jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. As the issue was decided on merits, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal allowed deduction for business promotion expenses, following its own prior decisions. However, it dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on goodwill, again relying on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee from Vodafone for interconnectivity services is not chargeable to tax in India as 'Royalty'. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. The High Court had ruled that payments made to non-resident telecommunication operators for providing interconnectivity services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries are not taxable as 'royalty' in India. Furthermore, the High Court held that such income does not accrue or arise in India in the hands of non-resident telecommunication operators like the assessee, especially when the services and equipment are situated outside India and the non-resident entity has no permanent establishment in India. Consequently, the Tax authorities in India lack jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. As the issue was decided on merits, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity and international private leased circuit services provided by the assessee do not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services. Consequently, the income is not taxable in India as the services were rendered outside India.
The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee from Vodafone for interconnectivity services is not chargeable to tax in India as 'Royalty'. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. The High Court had ruled that payments made to non-resident telecommunication operators for providing interconnectivity services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries are not taxable as 'royalty' in India. Furthermore, the High Court held that such income does not accrue or arise in India in the hands of non-resident telecommunication operators like the assessee, especially when the services and equipment are situated outside India and the non-resident entity has no permanent establishment in India. Consequently, the Tax authorities in India lack jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. As the issue was decided on merits, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee from Vodafone for interconnectivity services is not chargeable to tax in India as 'Royalty'. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. The High Court had ruled that payments made to non-resident telecommunication operators for providing interconnectivity services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries are not taxable as 'royalty' in India. Furthermore, the High Court held that such income does not accrue or arise in India in the hands of non-resident telecommunication operators like the assessee, especially when the services and equipment are situated outside India and the non-resident entity has no permanent establishment in India. Consequently, the Tax authorities in India lack jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. As the issue was decided on merits, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the assessee. On the primary issue of taxability as 'royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS), the Tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions, including the case of Telefonica De Espana S. A. Vs. DCIT, which in turn followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Vodafone South Ltd. The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity charges (IUC) do not qualify as royalty or FTS and are therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal noted that the rendition of services took place outside India, and the assessee had no presence in India, thus the income did not accrue in India. The alternative argument by the revenue that the payment received by the assessee is covered under Section 5 of the Act as income arises or accrues in India was also rejected. The Tribunal found that the situs of the source of income for a non-resident is where the non-resident carries on its business and performs business activities. Since these activities were outside India, the income did not accrue or arise in India merely because payments were made from India. Consequently, the grounds relating to the reopening of assessment were not adjudicated as the merits were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the assessee. On the primary issue of taxability as 'royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS), the Tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions, including the case of Telefonica De Espana S. A. Vs. DCIT, which in turn followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Vodafone South Ltd. The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity charges (IUC) do not qualify as royalty or FTS and are therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal noted that the rendition of services took place outside India, and the assessee had no presence in India, thus the income did not accrue in India. The alternative argument by the revenue that the payment received by the assessee is covered under Section 5 of the Act as income arises or accrues in India was also rejected. The Tribunal found that the situs of the source of income for a non-resident is where the non-resident carries on its business and performs business activities. Since these activities were outside India, the income did not accrue or arise in India merely because payments were made from India. Consequently, the grounds relating to the reopening of assessment were not adjudicated as the merits were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the assessee. On the primary issue of taxability as 'royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS), the Tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions, including the case of Telefonica De Espana S. A. Vs. DCIT, which in turn followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Vodafone South Ltd. The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity charges (IUC) do not qualify as royalty or FTS and are therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal noted that the rendition of services took place outside India, and the assessee had no presence in India, thus the income did not accrue in India. The alternative argument by the revenue that the payment received by the assessee is covered under Section 5 of the Act as income arises or accrues in India was also rejected. The Tribunal found that the situs of the source of income for a non-resident is where the non-resident carries on its business and performs business activities. Since these activities were outside India, the income did not accrue or arise in India merely because payments were made from India. Consequently, the grounds relating to the reopening of assessment were not adjudicated as the merits were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the assessee. On the primary issue of taxability as 'royalty' and 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS), the Tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions, including the case of Telefonica De Espana S. A. Vs. DCIT, which in turn followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Vodafone South Ltd. The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity charges (IUC) do not qualify as royalty or FTS and are therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal noted that the rendition of services took place outside India, and the assessee had no presence in India, thus the income did not accrue in India. The alternative argument by the revenue that the payment received by the assessee is covered under Section 5 of the Act as income arises or accrues in India was also rejected. The Tribunal found that the situs of the source of income for a non-resident is where the non-resident carries on its business and performs business activities. Since these activities were outside India, the income did not accrue or arise in India merely because payments were made from India. Consequently, the grounds relating to the reopening of assessment were not adjudicated as the merits were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee from Vodafone for interconnectivity services is not chargeable to tax in India as 'Royalty'. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. The High Court had ruled that payments made to non-resident telecommunication operators for providing interconnectivity services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries are not taxable as 'royalty' in India. Furthermore, the High Court held that such income does not accrue or arise in India in the hands of non-resident telecommunication operators like the assessee, especially when the services and equipment are situated outside India and the non-resident entity has no permanent establishment in India. Consequently, the Tax authorities in India lack jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. As the issue was decided on merits, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal allowed deduction for business promotion expenses, following its own prior decisions. However, it dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on goodwill, again relying on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete most of the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s observations based on the remand report and assessee's evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the income tax returns of her mother and spouse, to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the donors. The revenue failed to provide any corroborative material to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, including Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs), to purchase the land. Therefore, the borrowed funds were not utilized for the land purchase, and the disallowance of interest was not warranted.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly verified the assessee's claims regarding agricultural income and lease agreements. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity and international private leased circuit services provided by the assessee do not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services. Consequently, the income is not taxable in India as the services were rendered outside India.
The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity and international private leased circuit services provided by the assessee do not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services. Consequently, these receipts are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for depreciation and deferred revenue expenditure, holding that depreciation is allowable even if capital expenditure was claimed as application and that proportionate expenditure can be claimed over the lifespan of an asset. Other disallowances were confirmed.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for depreciation and deferred revenue expenditure, holding that depreciation is allowable even if capital expenditure was claimed as application and that proportionate expenditure can be claimed over the lifespan of an asset. Other disallowances were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2017-18, the ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected as it was not pressed. Regarding the PE issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish with credible evidence that SanDisk India habitually exercised the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. The inter-company agreement explicitly denied such authority, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that purchase orders were placed by third-party distributors directly with the assessee, and any receipt of these orders by SanDisk India was merely for facilitation. The Tribunal distinguished the Jebon Corporation case relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 was deleted, and the appeal for this year was partly allowed. For Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17, the facts were identical, and thus, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2017-18, the ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected as it was not pressed. Regarding the PE issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish with credible evidence that SanDisk India habitually exercised the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. The inter-company agreement explicitly denied such authority, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that purchase orders were placed by third-party distributors directly with the assessee, and any receipt of these orders by SanDisk India was merely for facilitation. The Tribunal distinguished the Jebon Corporation case relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 was deleted, and the appeal for this year was partly allowed. For Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17, the facts were identical, and thus, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2017-18, the ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected as it was not pressed. Regarding the PE issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish with credible evidence that SanDisk India habitually exercised the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. The inter-company agreement explicitly denied such authority, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that purchase orders were placed by third-party distributors directly with the assessee, and any receipt of these orders by SanDisk India was merely for facilitation. The Tribunal distinguished the Jebon Corporation case relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 was deleted, and the appeal for this year was partly allowed. For Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17, the facts were identical, and thus, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2017-18, the ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected as it was not pressed. Regarding the PE issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish with credible evidence that SanDisk India habitually exercised the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. The inter-company agreement explicitly denied such authority, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that purchase orders were placed by third-party distributors directly with the assessee, and any receipt of these orders by SanDisk India was merely for facilitation. The Tribunal distinguished the Jebon Corporation case relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 was deleted, and the appeal for this year was partly allowed. For Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17, the facts were identical, and thus, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2017-18, the ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected as it was not pressed. Regarding the PE issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish with credible evidence that SanDisk India habitually exercised the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. The inter-company agreement explicitly denied such authority, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that purchase orders were placed by third-party distributors directly with the assessee, and any receipt of these orders by SanDisk India was merely for facilitation. The Tribunal distinguished the Jebon Corporation case relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 was deleted, and the appeal for this year was partly allowed. For Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17, the facts were identical, and thus, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. For AY 2017-18, the ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected as it was not pressed. Regarding the PE issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish with credible evidence that SanDisk India habitually exercised the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. The inter-company agreement explicitly denied such authority, and no evidence was presented by the Revenue to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that purchase orders were placed by third-party distributors directly with the assessee, and any receipt of these orders by SanDisk India was merely for facilitation. The Tribunal distinguished the Jebon Corporation case relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18 was deleted, and the appeal for this year was partly allowed. For Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17, the facts were identical, and thus, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid, but the substantive issues were decided in favour of the assessee. Regarding the taxability of Voice Interconnect Services as royalty, the Tribunal, following its own decisions for subsequent years and the decision in Vodafone Idea Ltd., held that these payments cannot be considered royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or the India-Austria DTAA. The payments were considered business profits taxable in the assessee's country of residence, not in India, as there was no permanent establishment. The Tribunal also held that Indian tax authorities lack jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources, as the facilities were situated outside India and the agreement was with a foreign entity without presence in India. The issue of withholding tax liability at a higher rate was also decided against the revenue, relying on CIT Vs. M/s. Wipro. The liability for non-deduction of tax at source for AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13 was held not applicable, as the Explanation to Section 9(1)(vi) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, and the assessee was entitled to DTAA benefits. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were held to be consequential and not adjudicated. Grounds related to penalty initiation were dismissed as premature. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. Regarding the taxability of Voice Interconnect Services, the Tribunal followed its own decision in the assessee's own case for subsequent years and the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. It was held that payments received for interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers cannot be considered royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or the DTAA. The payments were considered business profits taxable in Austria, and not taxable in India under Article 5 of the DTAA as no PE was established. The Tribunal also noted that the non-resident service providers had no presence in India, thus Indian tax authorities lacked jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. The liability for non-deduction of tax at source was also held to be untenable, especially considering the amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) were inserted after the relevant assessment years and the assessee was entitled to DTAA benefits. Consequently, the grounds related to the taxability of royalty and jurisdiction were allowed in favour of the assessee. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were held to be consequential and not adjudicated. Grounds related to legal issues and general grounds were either dismissed as not pressed or not requiring adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. Regarding the taxability of Voice Interconnect Services, the Tribunal followed its own decision in the assessee's own case for subsequent years and the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. It was held that payments received for interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers cannot be considered royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or the DTAA. The payments were considered business profits taxable in Austria, and not taxable in India under Article 5 of the DTAA as no PE was established. The Tribunal also noted that the non-resident service providers had no presence in India, thus Indian tax authorities lacked jurisdiction to tax income arising from extra-territorial sources. The liability for non-deduction of tax at source was also held to be untenable, especially considering the amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) were inserted after the relevant assessment years and the assessee was entitled to DTAA benefits. Consequently, the grounds related to the taxability of royalty and jurisdiction were allowed in favour of the assessee. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were held to be consequential and not adjudicated. Grounds related to legal issues and general grounds were either dismissed as not pressed or not requiring adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to administrative lapses and change in office bearers. The appeals were admitted for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on an inapplicable Supreme Court judgment. It found merit in the assessee's argument that interest might not have accrued if it became irrecoverable before accrual.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to administrative lapses and change in office bearers. The appeals were admitted for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) are permissible for errors apparent from the record. However, it remitted the issue of disallowance for late remittance of PF/ESI back to the AO for verification of the actual payment dates against salary payments and other supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of members who made the deposits and that the amounts were deposited into members' accounts. Therefore, Section 68 was not applicable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that several issues, including self-disallowances and provisions for gratuity, were not examined by the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted these issues back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and verification.
The Tribunal noted that several issues, including self-disallowances and provisions for gratuity, were not examined by the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted these issues back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and verification.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the grounds raised before the Tribunal were consequential to the MAP resolution. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the non-appearance before the CIT(A) was due to a reasonable cause and not intentional. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.