ADIT v. Delta Airlines Inc.

26 SOT 514Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#7361 most cited

What is ADIT v. Delta Airlines Inc. authority for?

The OECD Commentary and US technical explanation cannot be referred to when considering the scope of Article 8, paragraph 2 of the India-USA Tax Treaty.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Also referred to as

ADIT v. Delta Airlines Inc. · 26 SOT 514 · ITAT · India-USA Tax Treaty · Article 8(2) · OECD Commentary · US technical explanation · interpretation of tax treaty

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentsection 4(1)section 61section 90(1)section 39tax residency certificatesection 5(2)commercial rightsroyalty incomeassistant directorsection 9(1)(vi)beneficial owner

Judgments citing ADIT v. Delta Airlines Inc.

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. : 320 ITR 561 and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-1 (1), Mumbai vs. Delta Airline Inc. : (2008) 26 SOT 514 (Mumbai) 10.4. The Ld. Senior Counsel for GCC submitted that in the present case, the learned Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings based on the position adopted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order of Assessment Year 2002-2003. Such re-opening on the basis of assessment proceedings conducted for AY 2002-03 does not…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. : 320 ITR 561 and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-1 (1), Mumbai vs. Delta Airline Inc. : (2008) 26 SOT 514 (Mumbai) 10.4. The Ld. Senior Counsel for GCC submitted that in the present case, the learned Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings based on the position adopted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order of Assessment Year 2002-2003. Such re-opening on the basis of assessment proceedings conducted for AY 2002-03 does not…

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. : 320 ITR 561 and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-1 (1), Mumbai vs. Delta Airline Inc. : (2008) 26 SOT 514 (Mumbai) 10.4. The Ld. Senior Counsel for GCC submitted that in the present case, the learned Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings based on the position adopted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order of Assessment Year 2002-2003. Such re-opening on the basis of assessment proceedings conducted for AY 2002-03 does not…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 958/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 957/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 956/DEL/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 955/DEL/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

M/S. United Airlines Inc., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 954/DEL/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1695/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1694/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1693/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1692/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DDIT Non- Resident, Circle

ITA 1691/DEL/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DCIT, Non Resident Cir

ITA 217/DEL/2000[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

United Airlines vs. DCIT, Non Resident Cir

ITA 216/DEL/2000[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 1996-97 & Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 United Airlines, Vs. Dcit/Ddit Amba Deep Building, Non-Resident Circle, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacu4427C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)(i)Section 271(1)(c)

…to the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra). In this context, he drew our attention to a chart showing distinguishing features of both the decisions. Further, he submitted, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of ADIT Vs. Delta Airlines Inc., 26 SOT 514 (Mum.) would not be applicable to assessee’s case, as, in case of Delta Airlines the Tribunal held that neither the OECD Commentary, nor the US technical explanation could be looked into while considering the scope of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of India–USA Tax Treaty. He submitted, OECD Commentary definitely holds a persuasive value insofar as t…

ADIT v. Delta Airlines Inc. (26 SOT 514) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax