Armayesh Global v. ACIT

45 SOT 69Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#11702 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 270ASection 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)

Issues it is cited on

fees for included servicessection 9(1)(vii)beneficial ownerfees for technical servicesrule of consistencysection 9(1)section 144c(13)final assessment ordersection 144cdraft assessment orderscrutiny assessmentprevious year

Judgments citing Armayesh Global v. ACIT

SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS INC,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1459/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…i ITAT) ITA No. 2355/Del/2023 Six Continents Hotels Inc. 14 • Dy. CIT vs. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal No 2028/Ahd./13 and CO No 13/Ahd./14] • DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation L td. [2017] 77 taxmann.com• 165 (Ahmadabad ITAT) • Armayesh Global vs. ACIT 45 SOT 69 (ITAT Mumbai) • DCIT , Chennai vs. Mainetti (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12taxmann.com (ITAT Chennai) • CLSA Ltd. vs . ITO, (International Taxation) [2013] 31taxmann.com 5 (ITAT Mumbai) • PahilajraiJaikishin (66 taxmann .com 30) (ITAT Mumbai) 27. In view of the principles emerging from the above judicial precedents, it can be concluded that the amount…

SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2) - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 373/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…i ITAT) ITA No. 2355/Del/2023 Six Continents Hotels Inc. 14 • Dy. CIT vs. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal No 2028/Ahd./13 and CO No 13/Ahd./14] • DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation L td. [2017] 77 taxmann.com• 165 (Ahmadabad ITAT) • Armayesh Global vs. ACIT 45 SOT 69 (ITAT Mumbai) • DCIT , Chennai vs. Mainetti (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12taxmann.com (ITAT Chennai) • CLSA Ltd. vs . ITO, (International Taxation) [2013] 31taxmann.com 5 (ITAT Mumbai) • PahilajraiJaikishin (66 taxmann .com 30) (ITAT Mumbai) 27. In view of the principles emerging from the above judicial precedents, it can be concluded that the amount…

SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.,USA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), (INTERNATIONAL TAX), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.360/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Six Continents Hotels, Inc. C/O- Bsr & Co. Llp, Dlf Building #10, 8Th Floor, Tower-B, Dlf Cyber City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahcs-7853-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), International Taxation, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Himanshu Aggarwal & Manan Madan, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order On Following Two Counts:

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Himanshu Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…o India Tours and Travel (P.) Ltd. 54 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi ITAT) Dy. CIT vs. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2028/Ahd./13 and CO No 13/Ahd./14] DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 165 (Ahmadabad ITAT) Armayesh Global vs. ACIT 45 SOT 69 (ITAT Mumbai) DCIT, Chennai vs. Mainetti (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com (ITAT Chennai) CLSA Ltd. vs. ITO, (International Taxation) [2013] 31 taxmann.com 5 (ITAT Mumbai) Pahilajrai Jaikishin (66 taxmann.com 30) (ITAT Mumbai) 8 27. In view of the principles emerging from the above judicial precedents, it can be concluded that the amount cha…

SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1)(2) INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3339/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144(10)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s and Travel (P.) Ltd. 54 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi ITAT) 17  Dy. CIT vs. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal No . 2028/Ahd./13 and CO No 13/Ahd./14]  DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation L td. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 165 (Ahmadabad ITAT)  Armayesh Global vs. ACIT 45 SOT 69 (ITAT Mumbai)  DCIT , Chennai vs. Mainetti (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com (ITAT Chennai)  CLSA Ltd. vs . ITO, (International Taxation) [2013] 31 taxmann.com 5 (ITAT Mumbai)  PahilajraiJaikishin (66 taxmann.com 30) (ITAT Mumbai) 27. In view of the principles emerging from the above judicial precedents, it can be concluded that the amount…

SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1)(2) INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…taxmann.com 138 (Delhi ITAT) 14 Six Continents Hotels Inc.  Dy. CIT vs. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2028/Ahd./13 and CO No 13/Ahd./14]  DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 165 (Ahmadabad ITAT)  Armayesh Global vs. ACIT 45 SOT 69 (ITAT Mumbai)  DCIT, Chennai vs. Mainetti (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com (ITAT Chennai)  CLSA Ltd. vs. ITO, (International Taxation) [2013] 31 taxmann.com 5 (ITAT Mumbai)  Pahilajrai Jaikishin (66 taxmann.com 30) (ITAT Mumbai) 27. In view of the principles emerging from the above judicial precedents, it can be concluded that the amount…

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-19(3), M/S S.K. Age Exports, R. No.206M 2Nd Floor, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Vs. Tardeo Raod, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs4534R

Section 143(3)Section 195

…As such, the amount paid is not income which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act and hence, no tax was deductible therefrom. 2.4.7 I am fortified in the above view by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Armayesh Global vs. ACIT, (2011) 45 SOT 69 (Mum) (URO) dated 23-02-2011 where it has been held as under: "The overseas agent did not render any services in India. It had no place or permanent establishment in India. It worked abroad and procured orders. The· orders were sent directly by the foreign purchasers remitted to the assessee in India and even the payment for export was received by…

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5445/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…. As such, the amount paid is not income which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act and hence, no tax was deductible therefrom. 2.4.7 I am fortified in the above view by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Armayesh Global vs. ACIT, (2011) 45 SOT 69 (Mum) (URO) dated 23-02-2011 where it has been held as under: "The overseas agent did not render any services in India. It had no place or permanent establishment in India. It worked abroad and procured orders. The· orders were sent directly by the foreign purchasers remitted to the assessee in India and even the payment for export was received by…

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3349/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…. As such, the amount paid is not income which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act and hence, no tax was deductible therefrom. 2.4.7 I am fortified in the above view by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Armayesh Global vs. ACIT, (2011) 45 SOT 69 (Mum) (URO) dated 23-02-2011 where it has been held as under: "The overseas agent did not render any services in India. It had no place or permanent establishment in India. It worked abroad and procured orders. The· orders were sent directly by the foreign purchasers remitted to the assessee in India and even the payment for export was received by…

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…. As such, the amount paid is not income which is chargeable under the provisions of the Act and hence, no tax was deductible therefrom. 2.4.7 I am fortified in the above view by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Armayesh Global vs. ACIT, (2011) 45 SOT 69 (Mum) (URO) dated 23-02-2011 where it has been held as under: "The overseas agent did not render any services in India. It had no place or permanent establishment in India. It worked abroad and procured orders. The· orders were sent directly by the foreign purchasers remitted to the assessee in India and even the payment for export was received by…

Armayesh Global v. ACIT (45 SOT 69) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax