CIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd.

392 ITR 186Supreme Court of India2017#833 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd. authority for?

For a payment to qualify as "fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, direct human intervention in rendering the service is essential. Payments for automated software systems, online platforms, or database access without human involvement in delivering the service are not considered fees for technical services.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Bharati Cellular Ltd · 392 ITR 186 · Section 9(1)(vii) Income Tax Act · fees for technical services · FTS definition · human intervention · automated software system · no FTS without human element · technical services DTAA · 194J TDS · Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii)

Also reported as

193 Taxmann 97

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 194JSection 40(a)(ia)Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentcopyrighted articlesection 9(1)(vii)fees for included servicesfees for technical servicessection 9(1)(vi)section 195(2)section 194hsection 9(1)section 115asection 194jtax treaty

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd.

Elsevier Information Systems Gmbh, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1683/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…for technical services under the provisions of the Act or the India– Germany Tax Treaty to make it taxable in India. In support of such contention, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) DIT v/s A.P. Moller Maersk A.S., 392 ITR 186 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Kotak Securities Ltd., 383 ITR 001 (SC); and iii) CIT v/s Bharati Cellular Ltd., 330 ITR 239 (SC). 9. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the DRP submitted that the data provided by the assessee through the database are customized data catering to the speci…

Noida Power Company Ltd., Greater Noida vs. JCIT, Noida

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3481/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3481/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2011-12) Noida Power Company Ltd. Vs JCIT Commercial Complex, H-Block, Range-3 Alpha-II, Sector Noida Greater Noida (RESPONDENT) AAACN4984D (APPELLANT) Appellant by Ms. Sushmita Basu, CA Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/3/2016 passed by CIT(A)-1, Noida, for Assessment Yea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Apco Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue for A

ITA 205/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. 2010-11

Section 142Section 143Section 195Section 40

…ds of the recipient. Once a particular amount is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non- resident recipient, the question of applicability of section 195 does not arise. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT(I.T.) VS. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC) has held that once payment is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses, that is, it is a cost sharing arrangement, it cannot be income chargeable to tax in the hands of recipient. Similar view was earlier taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in DIT VS. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. (Bom) (2014) 364 ITR 227 (Bom) holding th…

ACIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Apco Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue for A

ITA 1256/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. 2010-11

Section 142Section 143Section 195Section 40

…ds of the recipient. Once a particular amount is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non- resident recipient, the question of applicability of section 195 does not arise. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT(I.T.) VS. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC) has held that once payment is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses, that is, it is a cost sharing arrangement, it cannot be income chargeable to tax in the hands of recipient. Similar view was earlier taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in DIT VS. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. (Bom) (2014) 364 ITR 227 (Bom) holding th…

DCIT (TDS), Chandigahr vs. M/S Idea Cellular Ltd., Mohali

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, CA
Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 21 to 24/CHD/2018 A.Ys: 2005-06,2006-07,2008-09 2009-10 The DCIT (TDS), Vs. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Chandigarh. C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali. PAN No. : AABCB9505H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT Respondent by : Shri Ronak G. Doshi, CA Date of hearing : 01.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2018 ORDER PER BENCH By these are four appeals, the Revenue assails the correctness of the separate ord…

Spender Stuart (I) O, Ktd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7117/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…without it, it could not be treated as any technical services provided to the agents. " Considering the above, we decide second ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.” 17. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs A.P. Moller Maersk AS: /2017/ 392 ITR 186 (SC) held that once the character of the M/s. Spencer Staurt (I) Pvt. Ltd., payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of the expenses, it cannot be income chargeable to tax. Following judicial pronouncements also supports our view. 18.  CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] (310 ITR 320) (Bom)  DIT v. Krupp Udhe GmbH (354 ITR 1 7…

Gemological Institute International, Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6556/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N. K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 143(3)

…Inc. cost incurred by the assessee and external cost borne or paid by the assessee on behalf of GIA India. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid facts, the Tribunal has applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of DIT v/s A.P. Moller Maersk, 392 ITR 186 (SC) and held that the amount received towards reimbursement of cost cannot be taxed at the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the observation of the learned DRP that Tribunal has not addressed the issue is baseless. 9. The learned Departmental Representative has not been able to convince us that there is any difference in facts as involved in th…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7159/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Renaissance Services Bv The Deputy Director Of C/O Bmr & Associates Llp Income-Tax (International बिधम/ Bmr House, 36B Taxation)-2(1), 1St Floor 36B, Dr. R.K Shirodkar Marg, Room No. 120, Scindia Vs. Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 House, Ballard Estate Mumbai- 400 038 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaecr4995E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/shri Paras S. Savla and PratikFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 250

…acilities/services and not in lieu of any tailor made services, thus the same could not be held as FTS, relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) and DIT Vs. A.P Moller Mersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). The ld. A.R in support of his contention that consideration received for providing access to reservation system cannot be held as FTS, relied on P a g e | 10 ITA No. 7159/Mum/2012 A.Y 2009-10 Renaissance Services BV Vs. The DDIT (I.T.) certain judicial pronouncements, viz. (i). DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc. (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del); (…

Spencer Stuart Inetrnational Bv, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1696/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh Butani/Shreyash ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…of paragraph 2(a)(v) of the SA ,some of them are covered by paragraph 2(a)(vi) of the SA.He further stated that while completing the assessments for the AY.s.2009-10 and 2010-11,the AO had not taxed the similar amounts..He relied upon the case of A P Moller (392 ITR 186).The DR supported the order of the AO. 4.2.We find the assessee had received payments from SSIPL towards reimbursement of expenses amounting to Rs.70,36,912,that the expenses reimbursed to the assessee by SSIPL were mainly towards travel and stay, video conferencing charges, insurance, reimbursement for purchase of fixed assets and other miscella…

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Chandigarh vs. ITO TDS-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 340/CHANDI/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Mohan Singh, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, TDS-II, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(TDS), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A & M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(TDS), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appell…

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Chandigarh vs. ACIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 217/CHANDI/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Mohan Singh, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, TDS-II, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(TDS), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A & M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(TDS), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appell…

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Chandigarh vs. ACIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 216/CHANDI/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Mohan Singh, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, TDS-II, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(TDS), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A & M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(TDS), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACB2894G TAN: PTLB10577A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appell…

M/S. T - 3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…e was in respect of non application of sections 195 and 40(a)(i) of the Act. Further, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Cen (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) and DIT Vs. A.P. Moller Maersk A S (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 11. Coming to the next proposition of Assessing Officer that the payment made by assessee was either ‘royalty’ or ‘FTS’. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard pointed out that in case of payment made to third party, the question is whether ‘royalty’ or ‘FTS’. He 10 T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd. refer…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S. Noida Power Company Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed

ITA 5442/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Smt. Sushmita Basu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5442/DEL/2015 [A.Y. 2011-12] The A.C.I.T. Vs. Noida Power Company Ltd TDS, Noida Commercial Complex Block H, Alpha - II Greater Noida PAN : AAACN 4984 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : Smt. Sushmita Basu, Adv Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal of the Revenue arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Noidai vide order…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S. Noida Power Company Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Department stands

ITA 5443/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Ms. Sushmita Basu, Adv. & MrFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5443/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2012-13 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S NOIDA POWER COMPANY INCOME TAX, TDS-NOIDA LTD., AYAKAR BHAWAN, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SECTOR-24, BLOCK-H, ALPHA-II, NOIDA-201301 GREATER NOIDA – UP (PAN: AAACN4984D) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Assessee by : Ms. Sushmita Basu, Adv. & Mr. Alok Goenka, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 25.05.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…(2009) 180 Taxman 35 (Del) and in CIT v. Modi Rubbers Ltd. (No. 2) (1998) 230 ITR 820 (Del). On the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being subjected to TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2004) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) which was upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ma…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…(2009) 180 Taxman 35 (Del) and in CIT v. Modi Rubbers Ltd. (No. 2) (1998) 230 ITR 820 (Del). On the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being subjected to TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2004) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) which was upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ma…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…(2009) 180 Taxman 35 (Del) and in CIT v. Modi Rubbers Ltd. (No. 2) (1998) 230 ITR 820 (Del). On the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being subjected to TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2004) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) which was upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ma…

Gemological Institute International, Inc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) -3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4659/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ashwani Taneja () - 2009-10 - 2011-12 Gemological Institute Dy.Cit 2(2)(1), Mumbai International Inc, C/O Gia India Laboratory P Ltd, 10Th Floor, Trade Centre, Bandra Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aadcg6758M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri JD Mistrty / Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Shahi Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

…ely on account of reimbursement of expenses wherein no profit element is embedded, then it cannot be taxed as part of FTS. In support of this proposition, he relied upon a very recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs A.P. Moller Maersk 392 ITR 186 (SC). It was further submitted that as per terms of the agreement, the assessee was entitled to receive from GIA India fee on account of cost incurred by the assessee to employ the individuals for performing the training and technical services plus a mark up of 6.5%. In addition to that, assessee was entitled to recover from GIA India by way of r…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Vodafone South Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/699/2015HC Karnataka28 Jul 2016

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA I.T.A.NO.699/2015 C/W I.T.A.NOs.700/2015, 701/2015, 702/2015, 703/2015, 704/2015, 705/2015, 706/2015 I.T.A.NO.699/2015 BETWEEN : 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-18(2), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... APPELLA…