CIT v. Copes Vulcan Inc.

167 ITR 884High Court1987#11449 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also reported as

30 Taxmann 549

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115 BAA Section 115A Section 14 Section 142(1)Section 142A Section 143(2)Section 144BA

Issues it is cited on

section 9(2)business connection section 9(1)(vii)permanent establishment fees for technical services section 9(1)liable to tax non-resident commissioner (appeals)section 37 transfer section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Copes Vulcan Inc.

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…vi) and is exempted from the operation of clause (vi) by virtue of the proviso, then we cannot refer to clause (i) which is a general clause. 8.1 Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Copes Vulcan Inc. 167 ITR 884 (Mad) wherein with reference to the proviso to section 9(1)(vii) similar view was held and because of application of section 9(1)(vii) receipt was excluded by the proviso, the said payment cannot be automatically fall within the section 9(1)(i) of the I.T. Act. It was the submission that when there is a special provision dealing with special type…

SMS CONCAST AG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5414/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ered in India or not. Thus, he submitted, the receipts from design and drawing has been rightly brought to tax in India. In support of his contention, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Copes Vulcan Inc. [1987] 167 ITR 884 (Madras) ii. AEG Aktiengesllshaft Vs. CIT (2004) 267 ITR 209 (Karnataka) 11. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is, whether the amount received by the assessee for supply of drawing and design is taxable as FTS in India. Insofar…

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 80G

…Ltd & Anrs. reported in (2000 1468 VST 459; • decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs India Fisheries Pvt.Ltd., reported in (19 6557 ITR 331 • decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Copes Vulcan Inc. reported in (1985) 167 ITR 884 • decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of LG Asian Plus Ltd vs ACIT in ITA number 2691/Mum/2008 and; • decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Platinum Investment Management Ltd vs DDIT in ITA number 3598/MU 1/2010 7.4. The Ld.AR further referring to sub-clause (B) and (D) of section 115A(1)(a) of the act submitted that where the fo…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. VIJAY GRANIMARMO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAYA GHAR GULAB BARI AJMER

In the result of the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 648/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H)

Section 143(3)

…the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply." Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income- Tax vs Copes Vulcan Inc 1987, 167 ITR 884 Mad has categorically held that when there are specific provisions for taxation, general provisions will not apply. Therefore, even if it is accepted that private enquiry by the Assessing Officer is not outside the scope of general powers of enquiry, in the present case specific provisions of section 142A shall only apply. Since no recourse has b…

SMS CONCAST AG,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 9(1)(vii)

…d in India or not. Thus, he submitted, the receipts from design and drawing has been rightly brought to tax in India. In support of his contention, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Copes Vulcan Inc. [1987] 167 ITR 884 (Madras) ii. AEG Aktiengesllshaft Vs. CIT (2004) 267 ITR 209 (Karnataka) 11. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is, whether the amount received by the assessee for supply of drawing and design is taxable as FTS in India. Inso…

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

…ision. The Courts have consistently applied the aforesaid rule of construction while deciding which provisions would prevail where there may appear apparent conflict in two applicable provisions [(Refer Sultana Begum (1997)1SCC 373): CIT vs. Copes Vulcan Inc.:167 ITR 884(Mad), Meteov Satellite Ltd vs. ITO: 121 ITR 311(Gujarat). In view of the above, since computer software is specifically covered as an item of machinery and plant under Clause (5) of Appendix I of Income Tax Rules, the same is eligible for depreciation at the rate prescribed under the aforesaid appendix as part of plant and machinery. Specific rel…

M/S. WIFI NETWORKS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2325/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 40Section 40aSection 9(1)(vi)

…ic article applicable to the impugned income of the nonresident, same shall be applied and not the General Provision of Article 12 of The DTAA. In taking such a view we find support from the Decision of Honorable High courts in CIT v. Copes Vulcan Inc. [1987] 167 ITR 884 ; [1987] 30 Taxmann 549, [2004] 267 ITR 209 (Kar) in AEG AKTIENGESLLSCHAFT v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. Furthermore, we also draw support from the Advance Ruling in Case of Dieter Eberhand Gustav Van Der Mark V CIT 235 ITR 698 (AAR) where it ruled that, if the applicant’s case falls under a more beneficial provision, it would be futile to stret…

M/S WIFI NETWORKS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-17(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 943/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Wifi Networks P Ltd., The Deputy No. 427, 80 Feet Circular Commissioner Of Road, Vs. Income Tax, 6Th Block, Koramangala, Circle 7 (1) (2), Bangalore – 560 095. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw5293L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the solitary ground of the appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 5086/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd, Vs. Acit, A-283, Ground Floor, Circle-14(1), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

…ic article applicable to the impugned income of the nonresident, same shall be applied and not the General Provision of Article 12 of The DTAA. In taking such a view we find support from the Decision of Honorable High courts in CIT v. Copes Vulcan Inc. [1987] 167 ITR 884 ; [1987] 30 Taxmann 549, [2004] 267 ITR 209 (Kar) in AEG AKTIENGESLLSCHAFT v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. Furthermore, we also draw support from the Advance Ruling in Case of Dieter Eberhand Gustav Van Der Mark V CIT 235 ITR 698 (AAR) where it ruled that, if the applicant‟s case falls under a more beneficial provision, it would be futile to stret…