Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI

9 SCC 449Reported decision1999#14545 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 144C(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1962Section 2(31)Section 9(1)(1)Section 9(1)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)section 2(1a)section 17(2)section 10(35)section 10(1)section 14a(2)beneficial ownerrule of consistencysection 17enduring benefitsection 30

Judgments citing Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHINA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INT TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 4661/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanschindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O. Bansi S. Mehta & Co. Merchant Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Chamber, 3Rd Floor, 41, New Marine Mumbai Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor, Air Pan: Aascs8166L India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(31)Section 9(1)(i)

…the other parts of the contract agreement with DMRCL and MMRCL, which clearly demarcates the description of work, the consideration, and the currency in which the same is to be paid to each of the consortium members. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI: (1999) 9 SCC 449, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the Agreement must be read as a whole with corresponding obligations of the parties so as to ascertain the true intent of the parties. 13. As per the assessee, the title in the goods i.e. escalators and elevators was transferred to DRMCL and MMRPL outside India and payment thereof was also received outside India…

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INT TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3355/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Schindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Tax, Int. Tax, Circle Merchant Chamber, 3Rd 4(2)(1), Room No. 1708, Floor, 41, New Marin 17Th Floor, Air India Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aascs8166L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…the other parts of the contract agreement with DMRCL and MMRCL, which clearly demarcates the description of work, the consideration, and the currency in which the same is to be paid to each of the consortium members. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI: (1999) 9 SCC 449, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Agreement must be read as a whole with corresponding obligations of the parties so as to ascertain the true intent of the parties. 13. As per the assessee, the title in the goods i.e. escalators and elevators was transferred to DRMCL and MMRPL outside India and payment thereof was also received outside Indi…

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3763/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Bayer Crop Science Ltd. (Successor to Monsanto India Ltd.) Ahura Centre, 5th Floor ……………. Appellant 96, Mahakali Caves Road Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AAACM2875L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–10(2)(2), Mumbai ITA no.2124/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–10(2)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Monsanto India Ltd. Ahura Centre, 5th Fl…

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2124/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3763/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Bayer Crop Science Ltd. (Successor to Monsanto India Ltd.) Ahura Centre, 5th Floor ……………. Appellant 96, Mahakali Caves Road Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AAACM2875L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–10(2)(2), Mumbai ITA no.2124/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–10(2)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Monsanto India Ltd. Ahura Centre, 5th Fl…

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3763/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3763/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Bayer Crop Science Ltd. (Successor to Monsanto India Ltd.) Ahura Centre, 5th Floor ……………. Appellant 96, Mahakali Caves Road Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AAACM2875L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–10(2)(2), Mumbai ITA no.2124/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–10(2)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Monsanto India Ltd. Ahura Centre, 5th Fl…

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2483/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…the other parts of the contract agreement with DMRCL and MMRCL, which clearly demarcates the description of work, the consideration, and the currency in which the same is to be paid to each of the consortium members. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI: (1999) 9 SCC 449, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the Agreement must be read as a whole with corresponding obligations of the parties so as to ascertain the true intent of the parties. 13. As per the assessee, the title in the goods i.e. escalators and elevators was transferred to DRMCL and MMRPL outside India and payment thereof was also received outside Indi…

SCHINDLER CHINA ELEVATOR COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1679/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

…the other parts of the contract agreement with DMRCL and MMRCL, which clearly demarcates the description of work, the consideration, and the currency in which the same is to be paid to each of the consortium members. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI: (1999) 9 SCC 449, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the Agreement must be read as a whole with corresponding obligations of the parties so as to ascertain the true intent of the parties. 13. As per the assessee, the title in the goods i.e. escalators and elevators was transferred to DRMCL and MMRPL outside India and payment thereof was also received outside Indi…

Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI (9 SCC 449) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax