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

…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

…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

…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

…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

…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

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

…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

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

…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

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

…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

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

…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…