(a) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co.

139 ITR 806High Court1983#2765 most cited

What is (a) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. authority for?

Indian courts should follow Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) when interpreting similar terms in the Income Tax Act. The case establishes the principle of DTAA primacy over domestic law for such interpretations.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. · 139 ITR 806 · Section 90(2) Income Tax Act · DTAA interpretation · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · interpreting IT Act terms · royalty definition · Section 9(1)(vi) · OECD Commentary · non-resident taxation · DTAA override

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)Section 248Section 254Section 90(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 209(1)section 44dasection 44csection 248section 9(2)section 44dsection 209dependent agent pesection 9(1)(vi)agency pefixed place pesection 90(2)

Judgments citing (a) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co.

DIT 1 Internationa Taxation vs. Intelsat Corporation

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 977 / 2011HC Delhi19 Aug 2011
Section 9(1)(vi)

…ferred to OECD convention, commentary thereon, commentary written by Klaus Vogel, decision in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Azadi Bachao Aandolan and Another, (2003) ITR 706, CIT Vs. Ahamdabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Company 139 ITR 806 (Gujarat), and CIT Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, (1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP). . 3.4 The revenue had also raised the question regarding applicability of section 9(1)(vii) for the first time before the Tribunal. Although this ground was admitted, it was not decided as the income was held to be assessable u/s 9(1)(VI). No argument was a…

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd vs. Director of Income Tax

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA-131/2003HC Delhi31 Jan 2011
Section 195Section 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…rlier been used in international tax treaties. In that international tax treaties, the term ‗royalty‘ came up for discussion before the Courts in the following cases: a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. [139 ITR 806 (Guj)]. b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (AP). c) N.V. Philips Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [172 ITR 521]. d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Neyvali Lignite Corporation Ltd. [243 ITR 459 (Mad.)]. 43. It was, thus, urged that the same meaning to the term ‗royalty‘ should be assigned whil…