Birla Corp Ltd. v. ACIT

153 ITD 679Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#13511 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Birla Corp Ltd. v. ACIT

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFICE TECHNOLOGY B.V. vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 390/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 390/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic Technology B.V -Vs- Dcit, International Taxation, (Now Known As “Saab Technologies B.V.). Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabch 5694 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Avisekh Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…S. Reliance in this regard was placed on the co-ordinate bench decision of Jabalpur 9 HITT Holland Institute of Traffic Technology B.V. (now known as “Saab Technologies B.V.) A.Yr.2011-12 Tribunal in the case of Birla Corporation Limited vs ACIT reported in 153 ITD 679 wherein it was held that :- “By no stretch of logic, installation or assembly activities even involve transfer of technology in the sense that recipient of these services can perform such services on his own without recourse to the service provider, nor has it been the case of the authorities below. For this short reason alone, the installation,…

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…imited (2011) 335 ITR 122 (AAR) ADIT v. WNS Global Service Private Ltd. (2011) 45 SOT 119 (Mumbai ITAT) 28. In the context of installation, testing and commissioning services, the Hon'ble Jabalpur ITAT in the case of Birla Corporation Limited vs. ACIT (2015) 153 ITD 679 (Jabalpur ITAT) has held that installation, commissioning or assembly activities do not involve transfer of technology and are hence not taxable as FTS. The relevant extract of the judgment has been reproduced below: 19 20 HIIT Holland Institute of Traffic Technology B.V. A.Yr..2010-11 "By no stretch of logic, installation or assembly activities…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 840/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…other contentions raised by the assessee which remain open. In any event, as learned counsel for the assessee rightly submits, this issue is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a coordinate bench decision in the case of Birla Corp Ltd Vs ACIT [(2015) 153 ITD 679 (Jab)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 37. The underlying principle in all the above definition, even as there is a variance on the threshold time limits, is that unless the installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith cross the specified threshold time limit, the non-resid…

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 749/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…other contentions raised by the assessee which remain open. In any event, as learned counsel for the assessee rightly submits, this issue is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a coordinate bench decision in the case of Birla Corp Ltd Vs ACIT [(2015) 153 ITD 679 (Jab)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 37. The underlying principle in all the above definition, even as there is a variance on the threshold time limits, is that unless the installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith cross the specified threshold time limit, the non-resid…

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…other contentions raised by the assessee which remain open. In any event, as learned counsel for the assessee rightly submits, this issue is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a coordinate bench decision in the case of Birla Corp Ltd Vs ACIT [(2015) 153 ITD 679 (Jab)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 37. The underlying principle in all the above definition, even as there is a variance on the threshold time limits, is that unless the installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith cross the specified threshold time limit, the non-resid…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 673/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…other contentions raised by the assessee which remain open. In any event, as learned counsel for the assessee rightly submits, this issue is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a coordinate bench decision in the case of Birla Corp Ltd Vs ACIT [(2015) 153 ITD 679 (Jab)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 37. The underlying principle in all the above definition, even as there is a variance on the threshold time limits, is that unless the installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith cross the specified threshold time limit, the non-resid…

M/S. RHEINBRAUN ENGINEERING UND WASSER GMBH (NOW CHANGED TO RE GMBH),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-(IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2353/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2353/Mum/2006,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2002-03 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Rheinbraun Engineering Und Dy. Director Of Income Tax-(Intl. Wasser Gmbh(Now Changed To Re Gmbh) Taxation)-2(1) C/O. A.F. Ferguson & Co. Vs. Scindia House, Ballard Pier Allahabad Bank Bldg. N.M. Marg,Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacr 5788 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2138/Mum/2006,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2002-03 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Director Of Income Tax-(Intl. M/S.Rheinbraun Engineering Und Taxation)-2(1) Wasser Gmbh (Now Changed To Re Gmbh) Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Vs. Mumbai-400 001. N.M. Marg,Mumbai-400 001. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/Smt. Vasanti Patel िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar-Sr.Ar सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Smt. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar-Sr.AR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 44D

…ed for supervisory activities,that Article 7 was a special provision and it would prevail over the general provision i.e.Article 12,that the AO and the FAA had rightly taxed the income of the assessee @20.30%. He relied upon the case of Birla Corporation Ltd.(153 ITD 679). 6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had entered in to agreements with GIPCL and NLC on 14.3.1997 and 29.7.2000 respectively,that it had received Rs.1.13 Crores from the above mentioned three parties for providing technical consultancy services, that it had paid tax in respect of th…

Birla Corp Ltd. v. ACIT (153 ITD 679) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax