What is ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. authority for?

Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is applicable on the cost of services charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even if there is no profit element included. Fees for Technical Services are taxable on a gross basis as per Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) and Section 115A of the Income Tax Act.

How many judgments cite ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co.?

15 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. (94 TTJ 736), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 40A(2)(b).

ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. (94 TTJ 736)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Cirlce - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…said to be the employees of the applicant" 17. Where the cost of services is charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element TDS will be applicable as ruled in the case of Arthur Andersen & Co by the Mumbai tribunal reported in 94 TTJ 736 (Mum). 18. The Fees for Technical Services is taxable on Gross basis in terms of DTAA as well as Section 115A of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore there is no argument that, in order to bring the sum to tax, there need to be element of profit. 19. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High court in M/S. CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT LTD W.P. (C) No.6807/201…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1295/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…said to be the employees of the applicant" 17. Where the cost of services is charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element TDS will be applicable as ruled in the case of Arthur Andersen & Co by the Mumbai tribunal reported in 94 TTJ 736 (Mum). कर अपpe TAX OFFICERIDOT INCOME 18. The Fees for Technical Services is taxable on Gross basis in terms of DTAA as well as Section 115A of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore there to argue that, in order to bring the sum to tax, there need to be aveeleraent of profit. 19. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High court in M/S. CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE P…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1294/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…said to be the employees of the applicant" 17. Where the cost of services is charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element TDS will be applicable as ruled in the case of Arthur Andersen & Co by the Mumbai tribunal reported in 94 TTJ 736 (Mum). 18. The Fees for Technical Services is taxable on Gross basis in terms of DTAA as well as Section 115A of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore there to argue that, in order to bring the sum to tax, there need to be aveleraent of profit. 19. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High court in M/S. CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT LTD W.P. (C) No.6807/2012 h…

Rajnandgaon Petrol Service, Rajnandgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 553/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.553/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajnandgaon Petrol Service Partner : Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Pendri, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aagfr7601E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…judicial pronouncements: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Limited 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii)Monarch Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 54 TTJ 405; (iii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. 94 TTJ 736 (iv) Dwarka Prasad Agrawal Vs. ITO, 52 ITD 239 (v) CIT Vs. SSP (P) Ltd. 202 Taxman 386 (vi) Cardiac Care & Allied Health Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.247/JP/2019 (vii) M/s. Sunia Finlease Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.07/RPR/2017 8. As the assessee firm had failed to substantiate its claim for deduction of tanker expenses of Rs.43,99,618/- based on supporti…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…e is incurred by the way of reimbursement. Where the cost of services was charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element TDS will be applicable as ruled in the case of M/s Arthur Andersen & Co by the Mumbai tribunal reported in 94 TTJ 736 (Mum). Accordingly, the amount of Rs.4,67,690 is held as attracted for disallowance u/s. 40 of the Act. 14. The assessee is aggrieved that the assessing officer has erred in disallowing software expenses of Rs. 4,67,690 under section 40 for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments. The AO noted that the assessee had incurred an…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…e is incurred by the way of reimbursement. Where the cost of services was charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element TDS will be applicable as ruled in the case of M/s Arthur Andersen & Co by the Mumbai tribunal reported in 94 TTJ 736 (Mum). Accordingly, the amount of Rs.4,67,690 is held as attracted for disallowance u/s. 40 of the Act. 14. The assessee is aggrieved that the assessing officer has erred in disallowing software expenses of Rs. 4,67,690 under section 40 for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments. The AO noted that the assessee had incurred an…

M/S Ub International Trading Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1246/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 204Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2010-11 M/s. U.B. International Trading Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Level 12, UB Tower, Ward 12(2), UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN: AAACU 5060H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6322/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiat& T Communication Services Vs. Dcit, India Pvt Ltd, Circle-2(1), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan: Aacca8033E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 153(1)Section 40

…icial precedents wherein it has been held that ad-hoc disallowances are bad in law: i. Good Year India Ltd. vs. ITO (2000) 73 ITD 189 (Delhi ITAT) ii. Express Movers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 128 (Delhi ITAT) iii. ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson and Co. (2004) 94 TTJ 736 14. He further submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer – 1(1) has duly examined the Transfer Pricing Documentation maintained by the Applicant (wherein the transaction with AT&T US was also recorded) and has not drawn any adverse inference in his order under section 92CA (3) dated January 03, 2013 with respect to the genuineness of revenues e…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ed by the order of CIT(A) dated 01.12.2010 for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the department appeal before the ITAT. In support of this contentions, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in ACIT Vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (2005) 94 TTJ 736 (Mumbai), S.B. Billimoria & CO Vs. ACIT (2010) 125 ITD 122 (Mum), Raj Enterprises Vs. ITO (1995) 51 TTJ (Jp.) 408& M/s. Gillette India Limited Vs. ACIT (2014) 162 TTJ 137 (Jaipur Trib.). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.we have heard the argument advanced b…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ed by the order of CIT(A) dated 01.12.2010 for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the department appeal before the ITAT. In support of this contentions, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in ACIT Vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (2005) 94 TTJ 736 (Mumbai), S.B. Billimoria & CO Vs. ACIT (2010) 125 ITD 122 (Mum), Raj Enterprises Vs. ITO (1995) 51 TTJ (Jp.) 408& M/s. Gillette India Limited Vs. ACIT (2014) 162 TTJ 137 (Jaipur Trib.). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.we have heard the argument advanced b…

M/S. Parbhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Ltd., Punjab vs. Addl. CIT, Karnal

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

ITA 5288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh.O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Prabhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit, Ltd., Karnal Range, Karnal V. Gupta & Associates, Cas, D-15, Calibre Market, Rajpur Punjab Pan :Aaccp6521A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…racted, the income-tax authorities, not having determined any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profit and gains of the assessee-firm, were not justified in arbitrarily adding Rs. 15,000 in round figure to the income of the assessee-firm. ” " 94 TTJ 736, ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (ITAT Mumbai Bench), in which it was held as under: “Even though the AO has given categorical finding that the expenditure was for the purpose of the business and commercially expedient and the same was admissible as deduction, he made a token disallowance of 20 per cent of such expenses on the ground that element o…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…to whether the sum is paid as a reimbursement or as a payment for rendering services for establishing TDS liability. Thus reimbursements cannot be deducted out of the bill amount for the purpose of tax deducted at source. In the case of Arthur Andersen & Co. [94 TTJ 736 (Mum.)] the Mumbai Tribunal held that where the cost of services is charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element, TDS will be applicable. In case of Cochin Refineries (1996) 222 ITR 354 (Ker.), HNS VSAT Inc 95 ITD 157 (Del ITAT) and Hindalco 94 ITD 242 (Mum) also this was held that TDS is applicable on mere reimbu…

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…to whether the sum is paid as a reimbursement or as a payment for rendering services for establishing TDS liability. Thus reimbursements cannot be deducted out of the bill amount for the purpose of tax deducted at source. In the case of Arthur Andersen & Co. [94 TTJ 736 (Mum.)] the Mumbai Tribunal held that where the cost of services is charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element, TDS will be applicable. In case of Cochin Refineries (1996) 222 ITR 354 (Ker.), HNS VSAT Inc 95 ITD 157 (Del ITAT) and Hindalco 94 ITD 242 (Mum) also this was held that TDS is applicable on mere reimbu…

M/S. Konark Telelinks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department

ITA 5384/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…racted, the income-tax authorities, not having determined any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profit and gains of the assessee-firm, were not justified in arbitrarily adding Rs. 15,000 in round figure to the income of the assessee-firm. ” 94 TTJ 736, ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (ITAT Mumbai Bench), in which it was held as under “Even though the AO has given categorical finding that the expenditure was for the purpose of the business and commercially expedient and the same was admissible as deduction, he made a token disallowance of 20 per cent of such expenses on the ground that element of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Konark Telelinks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department

ITA 5116/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…racted, the income-tax authorities, not having determined any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profit and gains of the assessee-firm, were not justified in arbitrarily adding Rs. 15,000 in round figure to the income of the assessee-firm. ” 94 TTJ 736, ACIT vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (ITAT Mumbai Bench), in which it was held as under “Even though the AO has given categorical finding that the expenditure was for the purpose of the business and commercially expedient and the same was admissible as deduction, he made a token disallowance of 20 per cent of such expenses on the ground that element of…

ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co.

What is ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ACIT v. Arthur Anderson & Co.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Cirlce - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

Rajnandgaon Petrol Service, Rajnandgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S Ub International Trading Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

M/S. Parbhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Ltd., Punjab vs. Addl. CIT, Karnal

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

M/S.Us Technology Resources P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

M/S. Konark Telelinks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Konark Telelinks Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi