How many judgments cite ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd. (130 ITD 137), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115A, Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 44C, Section 244A, Section 40(a)(i).

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.

130 ITD 137Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#2203 most cited

What is ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd. authority for?

Interest income, such as on income-tax refunds or fixed deposits, derived by a foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is taxable under DTAA if the debt-claim is effectively connected or attributable to the PE. For DTAA purposes, the terms 'attributable' and 'effectively connected' are considered to have the same meaning.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd. · 130 ITD 137 · Permanent Establishment · PE · interest income taxability · income tax refund interest · effectively connected with PE · attributable to PE · DTAA Article 7 · DTAA Article 11 · Section 244A

Sections most often in play

Section 115A Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44C Section 244A Section 40(a)(i)Section 5(2)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 44c section 9(1)(v)section 92ca(3a)section 35dda section 92c(1)use of equipment section 35dd section 244 section 256(1)section 28(iv)section 9(1)(i)section 115a

Judgments citing ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.

Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 276/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blecitibank Overseas Investment Corporation V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) V. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor Corporation Air India Building C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 30 Floor, Tower 3 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 India Bulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation v. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/o Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP Room No. 1713, 17th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AABCC5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) v. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17th Floor Corpora…

Smt.Jenobia Adi Doctor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6085/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Smt. Jenobia Adi Doctor The Income Tax Officer 101, Kaveri Apartment, Opp. Ward- 15(3)(1), 456, 4 Th Iit Powai, Mumbai-400 076 Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Afmpd6669R

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta Mainkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)

…vanced across the bar.” And answered the issue on the concept of beneficial owner vis-à-vis a registered owner. 9. We have gone through the case law cited by the assessee of co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Harshad V. Doshi (2011) 130 ITD 137 (Chennai), wherein the Tribunal held that provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act did not apply to advances made by the company to the assessee, who was the Managing Director thereof and also holding substantial interest therein, to acquire land in his name for the purpose of development by the company so as to reduce the incidence of stamp dut…

M/S. Rolls Royce Industrial Power (I) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3929/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rolls Royce Industrial Vs. Dcit (International Power (I) Ltd., Taxation), K-39, Connaught Place, New Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaacr7629B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri R.K. Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By Shri G.K. Dhall, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271

…of re- opening of assessment. Hence, the same is not applicable in this case. Further, the reliance placed by Ld. CIT(DR) on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench B(Special Bench) in case of ACIT, Range- 1, Dehradun vs Clough Engineering Ltd. reported at 130 ITD 137. The facts of the decision on which Ld. CIT(DR) has relied are applicable in the case of assessee where it has been held that the interest of Income Tax refund cannot be treated as effectively connected with PE of the assessee and has to be taxed as per beneficial provisions of the treaty between the two countries. Keeping in view the facts of th…

M/S. Rolls Royce Industrial Power (I) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 12Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6100/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Rolls Royce Industrial Power vs Dy. Commr. of Income-tax (I) Ltd.,K-39, Connaught Place, Circle 3(1)(1), International New Delhi. Taxation, New Delhi PAN: AAACR7629B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commr. of Income-tax vs M/s Rolls Royce Industrial Circle 3(1)(1), International Power (I) Ltd.,K-39, Taxation, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN: AAACR7629B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA…

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S Rolls-Royce Industrial Power India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6069/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 12Section 143(3)

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…voked. Similarly in VIT's case, VIT was saved from huge losses on account of the onerous purchase of properties and therefore there is no case for invoking sec. 13(l)(c). 1.6Reliance is further placed on the Madras Tribunal's decision in ACIT vs Harshad Doshi 130 ITD 137 (Chennai) - copy enclosed [ANNEXURE 40J - similarly holding in the context of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e)." xi. The gift of of 15.791/4 acres valued at Rs.1.26 crores near Madras by GIE to the Appellant on 7.10.2008, (apart from reimbursement of all expenses including interest on loan taken to pay the advances) is more than adequate consideratio…

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), Chennai

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), Chennai

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Clough Engineering Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 9 of the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Clough Engineering Ltd, C/0. Srbc Associates, 14Th Floor, International Taxation, Vs. 13-A, Subhash Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Ruby 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Dehradun (West), Mumbai, Pan:Aabcc6248C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. GC Srivatava, Adv

Section 40a

…so directed the AO to not to charge interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act . This issue is also contested by revenue. The revenue has also aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) where the following the order of the special bench in the case of the assessee in 130 ITD 137 he has decided the issue about the taxability of interest received by the appellant on income tax refunds applying the beneficial rate of 15% as per article 12 India-Austria DTAA. The assessee has filed cross objection contesting the disallowance confirmed by the ld CIT(A) up to 50% of material cost, sub-contractor cost and other expenses. 5. The…

M/S. Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 801/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 801/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Rolls Royce Industrial Power Vs Dy. Director Of Income Tax, (India) Ltd., C-37, Connaught Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Place, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr7629B Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Adv. & Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca & Ms. Pallavi Dinodia, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Adv. & Sh. R.KFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kedia, CIT DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…e facts involved in the case of the assessee. It was further submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench “B (Special Bench)” in the case of ACIT, Range-1, Dehradun Vs Clough Engineering Ltd. reported at 130 ITD 137. 37. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, nothing is clear from the orders of the authorities below that what were the clauses in the 33 Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd. DTAA between India and UK. The claim of the assessee that the sa…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vikramditya Kukreja, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-2008) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Shri Vikramaditya Kukreja, 1001, 11Th Floor, 29 Sea, Piramal Chamber, Vs. World, Room No.304, Perry Cross Road, Lalbaug, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-2008) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -19(3)(4), Shri Vikramaditya Kukreja, 1001, 11th Floor, 29 Sea, Piramal Chamber, Vs. World, Room No.304, Perry Cross Road, Lalbaug, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AJFPK8837P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Revenue by Shri Vishwas Jadhav प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by Shri Naresh Kumar…