9(1)(vii). CIT v. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.

262 ITR 110High Court2003#9607 most cited

What is 9(1)(vii). CIT v. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co. authority for?

Customizing design, supply, and installation services that form part of an outright sale of equipment do not attract Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co. · 262 ITR 110 · Section 9(1)(vii) · TDS · technical services · sale of equipment · installation · customization · outright sale

Judgments citing 9(1)(vii). CIT v. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Kumar Kondiba Shingare, Pune

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 394/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…services extended for off-shore supplies of fabricated equipment subsume into such equipment. In other words, such services are not capable of being considered on a standalone basis and as such, do not get covered u/s 9(1)(vii). CIT Vs. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.-262 ITR 110 (AP) (Flag No. A-04 of legal compilation) - It was held in this decision that, supervision of erection, startup, etc. services performed for machines are incidental to sale of machines and were connected to the effective fulfillment of the contract of sale. ITO,IT, Chennai Vs. Prasad Production Ltd -ITAT 3 ITR (T) 58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Kumar Kondiba Shingare, Pune

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 393/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…services extended for off-shore supplies of fabricated equipment subsume into such equipment. In other words, such services are not capable of being considered on a standalone basis and as such, do not get covered u/s 9(1)(vii). CIT Vs. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.-262 ITR 110 (AP) (Flag No. A-04 of legal compilation) - It was held in this decision that, supervision of erection, startup, etc. services performed for machines are incidental to sale of machines and were connected to the effective fulfillment of the contract of sale. ITO,IT, Chennai Vs. Prasad Production Ltd -ITAT 3 ITR (T) 58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Kumar Kondiba Shingare, Pune

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 392/PUN/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…services extended for off-shore supplies of fabricated equipment subsume into such equipment. In other words, such services are not capable of being considered on a standalone basis and as such, do not get covered u/s 9(1)(vii). CIT Vs. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.-262 ITR 110 (AP) (Flag No. A-04 of legal compilation) - It was held in this decision that, supervision of erection, startup, etc. services performed for machines are incidental to sale of machines and were connected to the effective fulfillment of the contract of sale. ITO,IT, Chennai Vs. Prasad Production Ltd -ITAT 3 ITR (T) 58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Kumar Kondiba Shingare, Pune

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 391/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…services extended for off-shore supplies of fabricated equipment subsume into such equipment. In other words, such services are not capable of being considered on a standalone basis and as such, do not get covered u/s 9(1)(vii). CIT Vs. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.-262 ITR 110 (AP) (Flag No. A-04 of legal compilation) - It was held in this decision that, supervision of erection, startup, etc. services performed for machines are incidental to sale of machines and were connected to the effective fulfillment of the contract of sale. ITO,IT, Chennai Vs. Prasad Production Ltd -ITAT 3 ITR (T) 58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kumar Kondiba Shingare, Pune

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 182/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…services extended for off-shore supplies of fabricated equipment subsume into such equipment. In other words, such services are not capable of being considered on a standalone basis and as such, do not get covered u/s 9(1)(vii). CIT Vs. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co.-262 ITR 110 (AP) (Flag No. A-04 of legal compilation) - It was held in this decision that, supervision of erection, startup, etc. services performed for machines are incidental to sale of machines and were connected to the effective fulfillment of the contract of sale. ITO,IT, Chennai Vs. Prasad Production Ltd -ITAT 3 ITR (T) 58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06…

John Deere Eqipment P. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…Infrasoft Ltd. (supra). He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. New Delhi (2011) 16 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT Vs. Sundwiger EMFG & Co. (2003) 262 ITR 110 (AP) and pointed out that even if Pune Bench of Tribunal in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) had relied on the said decision. 26. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that amended provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act were not applicable since there is no amendment to definition of ‘royalty’ under DTAA and only the…

John Deere Eqipment P. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 907/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…Infrasoft Ltd. (supra). He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. New Delhi (2011) 16 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT Vs. Sundwiger EMFG & Co. (2003) 262 ITR 110 (AP) and pointed out that even if Pune Bench of Tribunal in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) had relied on the said decision. 26. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that amended provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act were not applicable since there is no amendment to definition of ‘royalty’ under DTAA and only the…

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…Infrasoft Ltd. (supra). He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. New Delhi (2011) 16 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT Vs. Sundwiger EMFG & Co. (2003) 262 ITR 110 (AP) and pointed out that even if Pune Bench of Tribunal in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) had relied on the said decision. 26. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that amended provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act were not applicable since there is no amendment to definition of ‘royalty’ under DTAA and only the…

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 905/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Modi, Pankaj Garg and Sudhendu Das
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…Infrasoft Ltd. (supra). He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. New Delhi (2011) 16 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi) and decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT Vs. Sundwiger EMFG & Co. (2003) 262 ITR 110 (AP) and pointed out that even if Pune Bench of Tribunal in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) had relied on the said decision. 26. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that amended provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act were not applicable since there is no amendment to definition of ‘royalty’ under DTAA and only the…

DCIT, Circle-2, TDS, Kolkata vs. M/S. Manaksia Limited, Kolkata

ITA 92/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…purchase transaction of the relevant air pollution control equipment than any kind of services rendered by the equipments supplier. It is thus an instant of outright sale therefore Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh high court’s decision in CIT vs. Sundwiger & Co. [2003] 262 ITR 110 (AP) holds that the relevant customizing design, supply and installation in such a case forming part and parcel of the purchase order does not attract u/s 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2 of the Act requiring TDS deduction. Yet another case law CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459 (Mad) echoes the very legal principle in concluding that li…

M/S. Manaksia Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(3) (TDS), Kolkata

ITA 2137/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

…purchase transaction of the relevant air pollution control equipment than any kind of services rendered by the equipments supplier. It is thus an instant of outright sale therefore Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh high court’s decision in CIT vs. Sundwiger & Co. [2003] 262 ITR 110 (AP) holds that the relevant customizing design, supply and installation in such a case forming part and parcel of the purchase order does not attract u/s 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2 of the Act requiring TDS deduction. Yet another case law CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 243 ITR 459 (Mad) echoes the very legal principle in concluding that li…

9(1)(vii). CIT v. Sundwiger Mfgr. & Co. (262 ITR 110) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax