Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT

364 ITR 336High Court2014#1317 most cited

What is Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Payments by an Indian company to an overseas entity for seconded employees constitute payment for services rendered, not mere reimbursement, when the Indian company lacks the power to terminate the secondee's original employment. Such payments are taxable as Fees for Technical Services and subject to TDS under Section 195.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT · 364 ITR 336 · Delhi High Court · seconded employees · expat employees · Fees for Technical Services · FTS · DTAA Article 12 · section 195 · reimbursement of salary · payment for services · section 40(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 192(1)place of effective managementsection 203section 9(1)(ii)section 44dasection 44dsection 9(i)(vii)section 9(i)service pefees for included servicessection 192interest under section 201(1a)

Judgments citing Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…d in (2020) 122 taxmann.com. 21. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR place reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 22. The Ld.CIT.DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi), wherein similar situation arose. Hon’ble Court held that, overseas entities, through seconded employees, provided ‘technical’ services to the assessee, and that, the expression, ‘rendering technical services’, expressly include, ‘provision of services of personnel’. 23. He submitted that in the decisions of, Verizon Data Services India P…

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…d in (2020) 122 taxmann.com. 21. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR place reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 22. The Ld.CIT.DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi), wherein similar situation arose. Hon’ble Court held that, overseas entities, through seconded employees, provided ‘technical’ services to the assessee, and that, the expression, ‘rendering technical services’, expressly include, ‘provision of services of personnel’. 23. He submitted that in the decisions of, Verizon Data Services India P…

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…d in (2020) 122 taxmann.com. 21. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR place reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 22. The Ld.CIT.DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi), wherein similar situation arose. Hon’ble Court held that, overseas entities, through seconded employees, provided ‘technical’ services to the assessee, and that, the expression, ‘rendering technical services’, expressly include, ‘provision of services of personnel’. 23. He submitted that in the decisions of, Verizon Data Services India P…

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…d in (2020) 122 taxmann.com. 21. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR place reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 22. The Ld.CIT.DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi), wherein similar situation arose. Hon’ble Court held that, overseas entities, through seconded employees, provided ‘technical’ services to the assessee, and that, the expression, ‘rendering technical services’, expressly include, ‘provision of services of personnel’. 23. He submitted that in the decisions of, Verizon Data Services India P…

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…d in (2020) 122 taxmann.com. 21. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR place reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 22. The Ld.CIT.DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi), wherein similar situation arose. Hon’ble Court held that, overseas entities, through seconded employees, provided ‘technical’ services to the assessee, and that, the expression, ‘rendering technical services’, expressly include, ‘provision of services of personnel’. 23. He submitted that in the decisions of, Verizon Data Services India P…

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/o MTR Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 1, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Income Tax (IT), 100 feet inner ring road, ASMNT, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. PAN: AABCO4087B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Presen…

Boeing International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3695/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 144Section 192Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.983/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 With ITA No.3695/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Boeing International Vs. ACIT, Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1), 3rd Floor, DLF Centre, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi PAN :AACCB3303J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. & Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. Respondent by Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT Date of hearing 11.02.2021 Date of pronouncement 11.02.2021 ORDER PER…

M/S Boeing International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 983/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 144Section 192Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.983/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 With ITA No.3695/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Boeing International Vs. ACIT, Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1), 3rd Floor, DLF Centre, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi PAN :AACCB3303J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. & Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. Respondent by Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT Date of hearing 11.02.2021 Date of pronouncement 11.02.2021 ORDER PER…

Fieldcore Service Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7692/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 4oSection 9Section 920(2)Section 920(3)Section 92BSection 92D

…f non- deduction of the tax on such payment, same were liable for disallowance. The Learned Assessing Officer also relied on the 14 ITA No.7692/Del./2017 decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centica India Offshore P Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 364 ITR 336, where in the SLP filed by the assessee has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 227 Taxman 368. The Learned DRP following its earlier orders upheld the disallowance, observing as under: “..This pertain to disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) amounting to Rs. 6,75,99,621/-. AO has discussed in details in Para 4 of h…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2375/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…fee for technical services’. Declining the contentions raised by the taxpayer, the AO after referring to the Secondment Agreement and by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi) proceeded to invoke the provisions contained u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act by holding that the taxpayer has failed to deduct the tax at source on salary & other allowances amounting to Rs.32,47,18,234/- & Rs.40,97,62,682/- and thereby made disallowance of Rs.22,16,37,000/- & Rs.30,84,53,598/- for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively in terms o…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2374/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…fee for technical services’. Declining the contentions raised by the taxpayer, the AO after referring to the Secondment Agreement and by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Centrica India Offshore P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 364 ITR 336 (Delhi) proceeded to invoke the provisions contained u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act by holding that the taxpayer has failed to deduct the tax at source on salary & other allowances amounting to Rs.32,47,18,234/- & Rs.40,97,62,682/- and thereby made disallowance of Rs.22,16,37,000/- & Rs.30,84,53,598/- for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively in terms o…

Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 04, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7075/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Corporate Office, Plot No. 57, Special Range -04 Sector 44, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40a

…handise like calendar etc., recovery of damages to apartments etc. It is the say of the learned counsel that these are nothing but pure reimbursements and the facts of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt Ltd 364 ITR 336 are clearly distinguishable. The learned counsel pointed out that on identical set of facts, the coordinate bench in A.Y 2011-12 has allowed the expenditure. 25. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 26. We find that some additional evidences were furnished before the DRP. Though the DRP has noted the…

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 355/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…thus liable to TDS which has not been done by the assessee. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,86,68,714/- was made. 23. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that reliance on the decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt Ltd 364 ITR 336 is not applicable on the facts of the case. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that substantial portion of this remuneration is towards expenses incurred by the employees travelling abroad to which principles in the case Centrica do not apply. The ld. counsel for the assessee further pointed out that on identical set of facts, t…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Yum! Restaurants (Asia) Pte Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6018/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.6018/Del/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…here was no fixed PE also. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley 292 ITR 416 (SC). 11. It was also pointed out that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Centrica India Offshore Pvt.ltd. [2014] 364 ITR 336 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is distinguishable. Referring to para 34 of the judgement, the Ld.AR for the assessee stated that in the facts of the said case, salary was the responsibility of foreign company which was reimbursed by the Indian concern, including direct costs; and the personnel also returned back. However…

Teradata Operations Inc., United States vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 2580/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7805/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 And Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Teradata Operations Vs. DCIT, Inc., Circle-3(1)(1), 10000, Innovation Drive, International Taxation, Dayton, Ohio-45301, USA New Delhi PAN :AAECT0303L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13.01.2020 Date of pronouncement 19.03.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: These two appeals have be…

Teradata Operations Inc., United States vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 7805/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7805/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 And Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Teradata Operations Vs. DCIT, Inc., Circle-3(1)(1), 10000, Innovation Drive, International Taxation, Dayton, Ohio-45301, USA New Delhi PAN :AAECT0303L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13.01.2020 Date of pronouncement 19.03.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: These two appeals have be…

ACIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Trans Energy Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 149/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S.Transenergy Ltd., Tax, No.77/2, Corporate Circle-3(1), Maduravoyal By Pass, New Block, 4Th Floor, Ayanambakkam, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ambattur Taluk, Nungambakkam Chennai-600095 Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aaact 1150 D] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.C.Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 2

…provided to assessee by employees of Brakes India Limited who were deputed by Brakes India Limited with assessee. The learned DR relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2014] 364 ITR 336(Delhi), which was later affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Centrica India Offshore Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2014) 51 taxmann.com 386(SC) by way of dismissal of SLP. The Ld.AR, on the other hand, relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., in I…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…in GE parts incorporation and stated that in fact it supports the argument of the assessee on the issue of the profit attribution. 80. The coordinate bench also drew attention of the parties to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of [2014] 364 ITR 336W (Del) CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS specifically para no 36 of the order where in it is held as under :- 36. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (supra) offers support for the Authority's viewpoint, rather than the contrary stance. In that case, the Court co…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…in GE parts incorporation and stated that in fact it supports the argument of the assessee on the issue of the profit attribution. 80. The coordinate bench also drew attention of the parties to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of [2014] 364 ITR 336W (Del) CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS specifically para no 36 of the order where in it is held as under :- 36. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (supra) offers support for the Authority's viewpoint, rather than the contrary stance. In that case, the Court co…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…in GE parts incorporation and stated that in fact it supports the argument of the assessee on the issue of the profit attribution. 80. The coordinate bench also drew attention of the parties to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of [2014] 364 ITR 336W (Del) CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS specifically para no 36 of the order where in it is held as under :- 36. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (supra) offers support for the Authority's viewpoint, rather than the contrary stance. In that case, the Court co…