AEG Aktiengesellschaft v. CIT

267 ITR 209High Court2004#4013 most cited

What is AEG Aktiengesellschaft v. CIT authority for?

Payments received separately for drawings and documents related to electrical portions of a mill supply contract are considered fees for technical services when they are not linked to the supply contract.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

AEG Aktiengesellschaft v. CIT · 267 ITR 209 · fees for technical services · drawings and documents · supply contract · German company · electrical portions · payment for services · section 9(1)(vii)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 144CSection 271(1)(C)Section 148Section 263Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 209(1)section 9(l)(vii)section 44bbbsection 9(2)commercial substancesection 9(l)section 59section 44bbsection 9(1)(vii)section 44bfixed place pesection 144c(3)

Judgments citing AEG Aktiengesellschaft v. CIT

Dsd Noell Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7282/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 271Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ately specified, this aspect would require a closer scrutiny and determination of facts, which we do not propose to do in the present proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Aeg Aktiengesllschaft vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax: (2004) 267 ITR 209 (KAR) held that burden is on the assessee to show that the payment received were not for technical services; “ 10. Further, at paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal has observed that since the agreement provides for two different payments and the payments under consideration have clearly been termed in the agreement as "engineering fees", there…

Dsd Noell Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7070/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 271Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ately specified, this aspect would require a closer scrutiny and determination of facts, which we do not propose to do in the present proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Aeg Aktiengesllschaft vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax: (2004) 267 ITR 209 (KAR) held that burden is on the assessee to show that the payment received were not for technical services; “ 10. Further, at paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal has observed that since the agreement provides for two different payments and the payments under consideration have clearly been termed in the agreement as "engineering fees", there…

Dsd Noell Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6190/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 271Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ately specified, this aspect would require a closer scrutiny and determination of facts, which we do not propose to do in the present proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Aeg Aktiengesllschaft vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax: (2004) 267 ITR 209 (KAR) held that burden is on the assessee to show that the payment received were not for technical services; “ 10. Further, at paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal has observed that since the agreement provides for two different payments and the payments under consideration have clearly been termed in the agreement as "engineering fees", there…

Dsd Noell Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 255/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 271Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ately specified, this aspect would require a closer scrutiny and determination of facts, which we do not propose to do in the present proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Aeg Aktiengesllschaft vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax: (2004) 267 ITR 209 (KAR) held that burden is on the assessee to show that the payment received were not for technical services; “ 10. Further, at paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal has observed that since the agreement provides for two different payments and the payments under consideration have clearly been termed in the agreement as "engineering fees", there…

Dsd Noell Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3186/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 271Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…ately specified, this aspect would require a closer scrutiny and determination of facts, which we do not propose to do in the present proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Aeg Aktiengesllschaft vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax: (2004) 267 ITR 209 (KAR) held that burden is on the assessee to show that the payment received were not for technical services; “ 10. Further, at paragraph 8 of the order, the Tribunal has observed that since the agreement provides for two different payments and the payments under consideration have clearly been termed in the agreement as "engineering fees", there…

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 9(1)(vii)

…g is nothing but rendering of technical services. Hence, has to be treated as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of AEG Aktiengesllschaft Vs. CIT, [2004] 267 ITR 209. 7. Having held so, he proceeded to examine whether the fees received can be deemed to accrue or arise in India within the meaning of section 9. While dealing with this aspect, he observed that the ratio laid down in case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. DIT (2007) 288 ITR 408 will be of no help to the assessee due to introduct…

M/S. Wifi Networks P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2325/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 40Section 40aSection 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s Wifi Networks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. TheDy. Commissioner of Income-tax, No.427, 80 Feet Circular Road, Circle-7(1)(2), 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. PAN – AAACW 5293 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s Wifi Networks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-7(1)(2), No.427, 80 Feet Circular Road, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. PAN – AAACW 5293 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT As…

M/S Wifi Networks Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 943/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Wifi Networks P Ltd., The Deputy No. 427, 80 Feet Circular Commissioner Of Road, Vs. Income Tax, 6Th Block, Koramangala, Circle 7 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560 095. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw5293L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Wifi Networks P Ltd., The Deputy No. 427, 80 Feet Circular Commissioner of Road, vs. Income Tax, 6th Block, Koramangala, Circle 7 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560 095. Bangalore. PAN: AAACW5293L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CA Revenue by : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 01.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by…

M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the solitary ground of the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 5086/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd, Vs. Acit, A-283, Ground Floor, Circle-14(1), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Poddar Pigments Ltd, Vs. ACIT, A-283, Ground Floor, Circle-14(1), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACP1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 5084, 5085, and 5086/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12) M/s. Poddar Pigments Ltd, Vs. DCIT, A-283, Ground Floor, Circle-14(1), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACP1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, FCA Revenue by: S…