55 DTR 417 (Cal) Panna Lai Kejrilal v. CIT

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…arima Heavy Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 408) SC b) Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (291 ITR 482) SC c) Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division (44 Taxmann 244) Del. HC (appeal withdrawn by the Revenue Department in the Supreme Court) d) Hyosung Corporation (AAR) (314 ITR 343) f) LG Cable (Delhi ITAT) (ITA No. 5280/Del/2011) Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that no portion of direct sales can be brought to tax in India either on account of alleged PE nor on account of the concept of Force of Attraction Rule (as the same is not present in the DTAA). 5.9 The Ld AR further submits that sales made by the assessee to Indian Cu…

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…arima Heavy Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 408) SC b) Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (291 ITR 482) SC c) Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division (44 Taxmann 244) Del. HC (appeal withdrawn by the Revenue Department in the Supreme Court) d) Hyosung Corporation (AAR) (314 ITR 343) f) LG Cable (Delhi ITAT) (ITA No. 5280/Del/2011) Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that no portion of direct sales can be brought to tax in India either on account of alleged PE nor on account of the concept of Force of Attraction Rule (as the same is not present in the DTAA). 5.9 The Ld AR further submits that sales made by the assessee to Indian Cu…

M/S. Voith Paper Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

…The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Skoda Exports (supra) held that for determining taxability in offshore supply one has to apply the test of predominance and decide where the sale took place. In the case of Hyosung Corp Vs DIT 314 ITR 343, the Authority for Advance Ruling held that responsibility of the supplier for quality and performance of the equipment should not be construed as a condition which postpone the transfer of the title in goods till that time. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs LG Cable Ltd., 237 CTR 438 held that buyer’s right to examine and repudi…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

…No(s) 1280/PN/2006 (A.Y. 2003-04), 60/PN/2009 (A.Y. xi) 2005-06), 177 and 178/PN/2008 (A.Y. 2002-03 and 2004-05 ITO vs. Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure, ITA No. 65/PN/2011 (AY 2007-08) M/s Gammon Progressive-JV xii) 55 DTR 417 (Cal) Panna Lai Kejrilal vs. CIT 314 ITR 343 (AAR) Hyosung Corporation xiii) 210 Taxman 49 (Mad)(Mag) Chennai Port Trust v. ITO xiv) 12. Once income is required to be assessed, TDS credit has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the TDS is deducted in the name of the another person. 357 ITR 396 (AP) CIT vs. Bhooratnam i) ITA no. 2417/Kol/2013 Mr. Parmanand Tiwari vs. ITO ii) of Pa…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

…No(s) 1280/PN/2006 (A.Y. 2003-04), 60/PN/2009 (A.Y. xi) 2005-06), 177 and 178/PN/2008 (A.Y. 2002-03 and 2004-05 ITO vs. Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure, ITA No. 65/PN/2011 (AY 2007-08) M/s Gammon Progressive-JV xii) 55 DTR 417 (Cal) Panna Lai Kejrilal vs. CIT 314 ITR 343 (AAR) Hyosung Corporation xiii) 210 Taxman 49 (Mad)(Mag) Chennai Port Trust v. ITO xiv) 12. Once income is required to be assessed, TDS credit has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the TDS is deducted in the name of the another person. 357 ITR 396 (AP) CIT vs. Bhooratnam i) ITA no. 2417/Kol/2013 Mr. Parmanand Tiwari vs. ITO ii) of Pa…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

…o(s) 1280/PN/2006 (A.Y. 2003-04), 60/PN/2009 (A.Y. xii) 2005-06), 177 and 178/PN/2008 (A.Y. 2002-03 and 2004-05 ITO vs. Rajdeep & PMCC Infrastructure, ITA No. 65/PN/2011 (AY 2007-08) M/s Gammon Progressive- xiii) JV 55 DTR 417 (Cal) Panna Lai Kejrilal vs. CIT 314 ITR 343 (AAR) Hyosung Corporation xiv) 210 Taxman 49 (Mad)(Mag) Chennai Port Trust v. ITO xv) 12. Once income is required to be assessed, TDS credit has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the TDS is deducted in the name of the another person. 357 ITR 396 (AP) CIT vs. Bhooratnam (pages 98-103 of Paper Book) i) ITA no. 2417/Kol/2013 Mr. Parmanan…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2010-11 Ito, Ward 38(3), M/S Oriental Structural 22Nd Room No. 2209, Vs. Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Floor, Block-E2, Kmc Construction Ltd., Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Joint Venture Jv Civic Centre, Nehru 21/48, Commercial Marg, New Delhi - 2 Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi (Pan:Aaaao0576A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. : 2010-11 Ito, Ward 38(3), M/S Oriental Structural 22Nd Room No. 2209, Vs. Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Floor, Block-E2, Gammon India Ltd. Joint Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Venture Jv Civic Centre, Nehru 21/48, Commercial Marg, New Delhi - 2 Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi (Pan:Aaaf06550D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…AOP. However in case of Geoconsult the parties were jointly and severally liable for the work undertaken and it became a single assessable unit because of the structure of the agreement and the intent conveyed. In a similar case of Hyosung Corporation (2009 314 ITR 343 AAR) though because of the overall responsibility assumed by Hyosung there was no involvement in the Indian parties contract but there was lack of commonality of purpose, hence it was not held to be an AOP. ITA Nos. 2026-2027/Del/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 In the present case the Parties are sharing gross receipts. The intent of the parties is clea…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2010-11 Ito, Ward 38(3), M/S Oriental Structural 22Nd Room No. 2209, Vs. Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Floor, Block-E2, Kmc Construction Ltd., Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Joint Venture Jv Civic Centre, Nehru 21/48, Commercial Marg, New Delhi - 2 Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi (Pan:Aaaao0576A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & A.Y. : 2010-11 Ito, Ward 38(3), M/S Oriental Structural 22Nd Room No. 2209, Vs. Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Floor, Block-E2, Gammon India Ltd. Joint Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Venture Jv Civic Centre, Nehru 21/48, Commercial Marg, New Delhi - 2 Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi (Pan:Aaaf06550D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…AOP. However in case of Geoconsult the parties were jointly and severally liable for the work undertaken and it became a single assessable unit because of the structure of the agreement and the intent conveyed. In a similar case of Hyosung Corporation (2009 314 ITR 343 AAR) though because of the overall responsibility assumed by Hyosung there was no involvement in the Indian parties contract but there was lack of commonality of purpose, hence it was not held to be an AOP. ITA Nos. 2026-2027/Del/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 In the present case the Parties are sharing gross receipts. The intent of the parties is clea…

Director of Income Tax vs. Ericsson A.B., New Delhi

…ct that the contract was signed in India is of no material consequence since all activities in connection with the off shore supply were carried on outside India. This judgment has been followed by the Authority of Advance Rulings in Hyosung Corporation, 314 ITR 343, where the fact situation was even less favourabe than the assessee‟s case. 30. He also submitted that the decision in Ishikawajima’s case completely covers the issue as to whether any part of the profit arising from the supply of the equipment by the assessee is chargeable to tax. He further submitted that in the instant case the title to…

Director of Income Tax

…ct that the contract was signed in India is of no material consequence since all activities in connection with the off shore supply were carried on outside India. This judgment has been followed by the Authority of Advance Rulings in Hyosung Corporation, 314 ITR 343, where the fact situation was even less favourabe than the assessee‟s case. 30. He also submitted that the decision in Ishikawajima’s case completely covers the issue as to whether any part of the profit arising from the supply of the equipment by the assessee is chargeable to tax. He further submitted that in the instant case the title to…