CESC Ltd. v. DCIT

87 ITD 653Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#3953 most cited

What is CESC Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

For technical services to be taxed under a tax treaty's "make available" clause, not only must the services be technical, but they must also result in the technology being made available to the recipient.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CESC Ltd v DCIT · section 9(1)(vii)(b) · make available clause · fees for technical services · Indo-UK tax treaty · Article 13(4)(c) · technology available · technical services

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 10ASection 10AASection 115JB

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vii)(b)make available clausedepreciation on softwarefees for included servicessection 10(35)copyrighted articlesection 9(1)(vii)disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 40a(ia)section 70section 90(2)fees for technical services

Judgments citing CESC Ltd. v. DCIT

Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT(A) I, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…orded and one treaty clarifies meaning of the terms (or language) used. The above view has been affirmed by the subsequent pronouncements in the following cases: (a) National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2006] 5 SOT 317. (b) CESC v. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 653 (Kol.)(TM). (c) Dy. DIT v Preroy A.G. [2010] 39 SOT 187 (Mum.) (d) Intertek Testing Services India (P.) Ltd., In re [2008] 307 ITR 418/175 Taxman 375 (AAR) ITA Nos.1229, 1329, 1250 & 1251/Bang/2016 Page 56 MEANING OF THE TERM 'MAKE AVAILABLE' Under the MoU to India-US tax treaty, it has been clarified that: "Generally speaking, technology will be…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Research Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1251/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…orded and one treaty clarifies meaning of the terms (or language) used. The above view has been affirmed by the subsequent pronouncements in the following cases: (a) National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2006] 5 SOT 317. (b) CESC v. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 653 (Kol.)(TM). (c) Dy. DIT v Preroy A.G. [2010] 39 SOT 187 (Mum.) (d) Intertek Testing Services India (P.) Ltd., In re [2008] 307 ITR 418/175 Taxman 375 (AAR) ITA Nos.1229, 1329, 1250 & 1251/Bang/2016 Page 56 MEANING OF THE TERM 'MAKE AVAILABLE' Under the MoU to India-US tax treaty, it has been clarified that: "Generally speaking, technology will be…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Research Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…orded and one treaty clarifies meaning of the terms (or language) used. The above view has been affirmed by the subsequent pronouncements in the following cases: (a) National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2006] 5 SOT 317. (b) CESC v. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 653 (Kol.)(TM). (c) Dy. DIT v Preroy A.G. [2010] 39 SOT 187 (Mum.) (d) Intertek Testing Services India (P.) Ltd., In re [2008] 307 ITR 418/175 Taxman 375 (AAR) ITA Nos.1229, 1329, 1250 & 1251/Bang/2016 Page 56 MEANING OF THE TERM 'MAKE AVAILABLE' Under the MoU to India-US tax treaty, it has been clarified that: "Generally speaking, technology will be…

Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT(A) I, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1229/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

…orded and one treaty clarifies meaning of the terms (or language) used. The above view has been affirmed by the subsequent pronouncements in the following cases: (a) National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2006] 5 SOT 317. (b) CESC v. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 653 (Kol.)(TM). (c) Dy. DIT v Preroy A.G. [2010] 39 SOT 187 (Mum.) (d) Intertek Testing Services India (P.) Ltd., In re [2008] 307 ITR 418/175 Taxman 375 (AAR) ITA Nos.1229, 1329, 1250 & 1251/Bang/2016 Page 56 MEANING OF THE TERM 'MAKE AVAILABLE' Under the MoU to India-US tax treaty, it has been clarified that: "Generally speaking, technology will be…

The Timken Company, Kolkata vs. The DDIT, International Taxation - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 1268/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…wledge, experience skill etc. 17. In the Raymond’s case (supra), the Tribunal also held that rendering of technical services cannot be equated with making available the technical services. In the case of CESC Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ (Cal) (TM) 806: (2003) 87 ITD 653 (Cal)(TM) also the question regarding the scope of expression ‘making available’ came up for the consideration of the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal was dealing with the scope of Article 13(4)(c) of the Indo-UK tax treaty which is in pari materia with Article 12(4) of the India-USA tax treaty with which we are presently concerned. The majori…

The Timken Company, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T (International Taxation) - II, Kolkata

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 2139/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…wledge, experience skill etc. 17. In the Raymond’s case (supra), the Tribunal also held that rendering of technical services cannot be equated with making available the technical services. In the case of CESC Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ (Cal) (TM) 806: (2003) 87 ITD 653 (Cal)(TM) also the question regarding the scope of expression ‘making available’ came up for the consideration of the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal was dealing with the scope of Article 13(4)(c) of the Indo-UK tax treaty which is in pari materia with Article 12(4) of the India-USA tax treaty with which we are presently concerned. The majori…

ADIT(It)-3(1), Kolkata vs. The Timken Company, Kolkata

In the result appeals for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 are allowed

ITA 387/KOL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…wledge, experience skill etc. 17. In the Raymond’s case (supra), the Tribunal also held that rendering of technical services cannot be equated with making available the technical services. In the case of CESC Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ (Cal) (TM) 806: (2003) 87 ITD 653 (Cal)(TM) also the question regarding the scope of expression ‘making available’ came up for the consideration of the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal was dealing with the scope of Article 13(4)(c) of the Indo-UK tax treaty which is in pari materia with Article 12(4) of the India-USA tax treaty with which we are presently concerned. The majori…

Outotec Oyj, Kolkata vs. DCIT, International Taxation 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)

…also argued that the contention of the ld AO that reliance cannot be placed on India-USA DTAA to understand the meaning of ‘make available’ is in contravention with the third member decision of this tribunal in the case of CESC Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2003) 87 ITD 653 (Kol ITAT) (TM ) . The ld AR also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of this argument :- (a) Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd reported in (2008) 175 Taxman 375 (AAR-New Delhi) in A.A.R. No. 751 of 2007 dated 7.11.2008 (b) Raymond Limited vs DCIT reported in (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mumb ITAT) He argued that the make available…

Outotec Oyj, Kolkata vs. DDIT(It)-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 558/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)

…also argued that the contention of the ld AO that reliance cannot be placed on India-USA DTAA to understand the meaning of ‘make available’ is in contravention with the third member decision of this tribunal in the case of CESC Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2003) 87 ITD 653 (Kol ITAT) (TM ) . The ld AR also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of this argument :- (a) Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd reported in (2008) 175 Taxman 375 (AAR-New Delhi) in A.A.R. No. 751 of 2007 dated 7.11.2008 (b) Raymond Limited vs DCIT reported in (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Mumb ITAT) He argued that the make available…

Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 3, Mumbai

ITA 7878/MUM/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar-Sr.A.R
Section 201Section 201rSection 254(1)Section 6Section 9

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘एल एल ’ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण एल एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7878/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Gujar…