202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes)

14 SOT 204High Court2007#4016 most cited

What is 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) authority for?

A 'perquisite' is a personal advantage derived from employment, not a mere reimbursement of necessary expenses.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Owen v. Pook · perquisite · personal advantage · reimbursement · employment benefit · incidental to employment

Also reported as

74 ITR 147

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbsection 44bfees for included servicessection 9(1)(vii)business connectioncomputer softwarefees for technical servicessection 195section 9(1)permanent establishmentsection 194ctax treaty

Judgments citing 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes)

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV vs. M/S. PRABHATH AGRI BIO TECH P. LTD.,

The appeals stand dismissed

ITTA/325/2012HC Telangana19 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 17(2)Section 260A

…regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised". 22. 'Perquisite' is thus a privilege, gain or profit incidental to an employment in addition to regular salary or wages. 23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having a money value, which the holder of an office under the company derives from the company's…

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd reported in 202 ITR 1014 g) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) 74 ITR 147 (HL) h) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd reported in 14 SOT 204 2.15 The Ld.AO examined the nature of payment in the light of the definition of “Royalty” under the Act and as per the India UK DTAA. 2.16 The Ld.AO referred to clause (via) of Explanation-2 to Sec.9(1)(vi) of the Act, which provides that, consideration for “the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment” is regarded as…

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 195Section 201(1)

…of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd reported in 202 ITR 1014 g) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) 74 ITR 147 (HL) h) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd reported in 14 SOT 204 2.15 The Ld.AO examined the nature of payment in the light of the definition of “Royalty” under the Act and as per the India UK DTAA. 2.16 The Ld.AO referred to clause (via) of Explanation-2 to Sec.9(1)(vi) of the Act, which provides that, consideration for “the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment” is regarded as…

CHANDER MOHAN LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 61(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

…the payments made. In support, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.: (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) ii. ABB Ltd.: 322 ITR 564 iii. ITO v. CGI Information Systems in ITA No. 1376/Bang iv. ACIT vs. Modicon Network: 14 SOT 204 v. CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 vi. CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft: 220 CTR 425 vii. C.I.T. vs. Stewards and Llyods, 165 ITR 416 (Cal) viii. CIT vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) ix. Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) x. Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) xi. Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82…

J AND P COATS LIMITED,BANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1367/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…p Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: IT(IT)A Nos.11/Bang/2014, 1365 to 1367/Bang/2019 IT(TP)A Nos.382, 1493/Bang/2015, 2135/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 37 is received or is deemed to be received in India; or accrues or a…

J AND P COATS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1366/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…p Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: IT(IT)A Nos.11/Bang/2014, 1365 to 1367/Bang/2019 IT(TP)A Nos.382, 1493/Bang/2015, 2135/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 37 is received or is deemed to be received in India; or accrues or a…

J AND P COATS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1365/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…p Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: IT(IT)A Nos.11/Bang/2014, 1365 to 1367/Bang/2019 IT(TP)A Nos.382, 1493/Bang/2015, 2135/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 37 is received or is deemed to be received in India; or accrues or a…

J & P COATS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2135/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…p Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: IT(IT)A Nos.11/Bang/2014, 1365 to 1367/Bang/2019 IT(TP)A Nos.382, 1493/Bang/2015, 2135/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 37 is received or is deemed to be received in India; or accrues or a…

J & P COATS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 382/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…p Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: IT(IT)A Nos.11/Bang/2014, 1365 to 1367/Bang/2019 IT(TP)A Nos.382, 1493/Bang/2015, 2135/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 37 is received or is deemed to be received in India; or accrues or a…

J & P COATS LIMITED,U.K vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1493/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…p Holdings Ltd) — e) 142 ITR 493 (Cal) f)CIT v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. — 67 ITR 95 (SC) g) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects (P) Ltd — 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) — 74 ITR 147 (HL) f) h) ACIT vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd — 14 SOT 204 (Del) (ii) The Assessee is a tax resident of United Kingdom (UK) and therefore taxability of income of a non-resident in India on the income from whatever source which: IT(IT)A Nos.11/Bang/2014, 1365 to 1367/Bang/2019 IT(TP)A Nos.382, 1493/Bang/2015, 2135/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 37 is received or is deemed to be received in India; or accrues or a…

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…0 (AAR)] ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 28 Airport Authority of India • Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited (2000) 245 ITR 823 • Siemens, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) ITAT • Clifford Chance, 82 ITD 106 (Bom) • Raymond Ltd., 86 ITD 791 (Bom) • Modicon Network, 14 SOT 204 (Del)  It was argued that from the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts that the reimbursement of expenses under no circumstances can be regarded as income. Therefore, in the instant case, what has been paid by the assessee to the non-resident, i.e. FAA is nothing but the reimbursement of expenses which…

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5162/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…0 (AAR)] ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 28 Airport Authority of India • Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited (2000) 245 ITR 823 • Siemens, 310 ITR 320 (Bom) ITAT • Clifford Chance, 82 ITD 106 (Bom) • Raymond Ltd., 86 ITD 791 (Bom) • Modicon Network, 14 SOT 204 (Del)  It was argued that from the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts that the reimbursement of expenses under no circumstances can be regarded as income. Therefore, in the instant case, what has been paid by the assessee to the non-resident, i.e. FAA is nothing but the reimbursement of expenses which…

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 86/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Sri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

…. The CIT(A) also observed that reimbursement of expenditure does not attract TDS, hence no addition required to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This view is supported by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Modicon Network Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2007) 14 SOT 204 (2007) (Del). For ready reference, we extract the relevant portion of the order as under: “Obligation to deduct tax under s. 195(1) is only with reference to the income element imbedded in the remittance. The obligation of the assessee to deduct tax under s. 195 is limited only to the appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act. It i…

MORGAN STANLEY ASIA ( SINGAPORE) PTE.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT I(IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 4365/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Sunil M. Lala &For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vii)

…g, engineering etc. and has held that payment of salary to the employees on under section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. 4.10 Similar view has been taken by ITAT in other cases namely: ADIT (IT) v. Bureau Veritas 131 TTJ (Mumbai) 29, ACIT v. Modicon Network (F) Ltd 14 SOT 204 (Del), Dy. DIT, (International Taxation) v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [0009] 34 SOT 83 (Mum.): also. 4.11 Hence following the judgment of Mahindra & Mahindra ITAT Spl. Bench, and other decisions as above the part reimbursement of expenses cannot be has income deemed to accrue or arise in India and taxable as income being "Fees for Technical Serv…

MORGAN STANLEY ASIA ( SINAPORE) PTC.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 8595/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Sunil M. Lala &For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vii)

…g, engineering etc. and has held that payment of salary to the employees on under section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. 4.10 Similar view has been taken by ITAT in other cases namely: ADIT (IT) v. Bureau Veritas 131 TTJ (Mumbai) 29, ACIT v. Modicon Network (F) Ltd 14 SOT 204 (Del), Dy. DIT, (International Taxation) v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [0009] 34 SOT 83 (Mum.): also. 4.11 Hence following the judgment of Mahindra & Mahindra ITAT Spl. Bench, and other decisions as above the part reimbursement of expenses cannot be has income deemed to accrue or arise in India and taxable as income being "Fees for Technical Serv…

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S. VEERA ASSOCIATES,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 332/VIZ/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Feb 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar SonowalFor Respondent: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…The CIT(A) also observed that reimbursement of expenditure does not attract TDS, hence no addition required to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This view is supported by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Modicon Network Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2007) 14 SOT 204 (2007) (Del). For ready reference, we extract the relevant portion of the order as under: “Obligation to deduct tax under s. 195(1) is only with reference to the income element imbedded in the remittance. The obligation of the assessee to deduct tax under s. 195 is limited only to the appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act. It…

M/S.SUN OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITTA/212/2005HC Telangana27 Dec 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

For Appellant: Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy
Section 10Section 201

…Chandrasen Reddy ^Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. K.Mamata <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: 1. (1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.) 2. 1998 L.S. (A.P.) 672 3. (1986) 161 ITR 477 (Ker.) 4. (2008) 298 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. (1969) 74 ITR 147 6. (1933) 18 TC 411 CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J. I.T.T.A_211_2005 & batch 2 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL I.T.T.A.Nos. 211, 212, 213 AND 214 OF 2005 DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 201…

M/S SUN OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEAL-V]HYD AND ANOTHER

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITTA/213/2005HC Telangana27 Dec 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

For Appellant: Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy
Section 10Section 201

…Chandrasen Reddy ^Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. K.Mamata <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: 1. (1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.) 2. 1998 L.S. (A.P.) 672 3. (1986) 161 ITR 477 (Ker.) 4. (2008) 298 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. (1969) 74 ITR 147 6. (1933) 18 TC 411 CVNR, J. & MSKJ, J. I.T.T.A_211_2005 & batch 2 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL I.T.T.A.Nos. 211, 212, 213 AND 214 OF 2005 DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 201…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SILICON GRAPHICS SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2937/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv
Section 143(3)

…ngineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20.08.92 2003-TIOL-247-HC-DEL. (copy enclosed): Held that reimbursement of expenses to a foreign entity cannot be regarded as revenue receipts; iv. Decision of Delhi ITAT in thecase of CIT Vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd. (2007) 14 SOT 204(Del.) (copyenclosed): Held in this important decision from Delhi ITAT that obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195(1) is with reference to the income element embedded in the remittance. Held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be considered as having an income element embedded therein so as to attract section 195(1). The AO has further seriou…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SILICON GRAPHICS SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2935/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv
Section 143(3)

…ngineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20.08.92 2003-TIOL-247-HC-DEL. (copy enclosed): Held that reimbursement of expenses to a foreign entity cannot be regarded as revenue receipts; iv. Decision of Delhi ITAT in thecase of CIT Vs Modicon Network (P) Ltd. (2007) 14 SOT 204(Del.) (copyenclosed): Held in this important decision from Delhi ITAT that obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195(1) is with reference to the income element embedded in the remittance. Held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be considered as having an income element embedded therein so as to attract section 195(1). The AO has further seriou…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2